***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

Should things be segregated by sex or by the concept of "gender identity"
is a political question

Yes, it is.

However, Shapiro is using a false statement - gender and sex are not different concepts - to support his political position.

This question, as it relates to gender identity, carries the same assumption

Should schools teach bleeding edge lightly evidence political and social theories as fact?

As a good scientist, NDT has to correct the record on what science says BEFORE addressing the political questions that arise from the scientific conclusion.

The way many societies have grouped all kind of activities was based on an understanding of sex/gender that has been shown to be obsolete. We also know of many societies throughout human history that were not stranger to, and even welcomed the concept of gender fluidity, so it's not like neurologists are introducing something new to the human experience when it comes to gender identity.

Rather than deny the truth in order to keep things as we want them to be, we should think about reorganizing our social activities in a way that goes along with the scientific evidence, and banishing LGBT people to insane asylums is not gonna be an option (anymore).

What's happening now regarding the gender identity debate may not be different from the discussions that happened when Galileo proved all the Flat-Earth/geocentrism models incorrect.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Ben is trying to have a political debate, NGT doesn't really take political positions.

And why should Ben get to set the framework for the conversation? There are many such frameworks that you could use.

Should schools teach bleeding edge lightly evidence political and social theories as fact?
is a political question

I’d say it’s a almost per se a pedagogical question. Certainly you could look at it politically and you could even decide it politically, but there aren’t always great results when politics seep too much into pedagogy.

Neil correctly points out that fluidity in expression is an observable fact and I think finds some ground for agreement that’s outside of less established “theory”

Should things be segregated by sex or by the concept of "gender identity"
is a political question

Agreed that this is largely a question of policy and so, somewhat intrinsically political. I suspect the main reason NDT is in the room is because BS has supported his political arguments through rhetorical and irrelevant appeals to science. I think Tyson does a nice job here of pointing out that science isn’t super relevant.

nothing was "debated" no one won or lost. science and politics are two different things.
you can't have a genuine intellectual conversation, when one side doesn't want to engadge with the crux the disagreement.

Or when the other side resorts to intellectual dishonesty. But, yeah, as I said before I am uninterested in “winning a debate”. To me, this conversation is useful because it untangles what BS (and others) had conflated.

but lets not act like this was some wild debate"

Did I? I didn’t mean to…

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Yes, it is.

However, Shapiro is using a false statement - gender and sex are not different concepts - to support his political position.

This question, as it relates to gender identity, carries the same assumption

yah that's not true, I hate Ben, but we don't need to make up what he said in the clip.

He said "the argument that gender theorists give is sex has no relationship to gender and it doesn't matter that on average women are stronger than men ect"
he didn't say "sex and gender are exactly the same concept"

and what Ben is saying is true,
Sex and gender are different concepts but the idea that they don't have any relationship to each other seems pretty false
given that peoples sex and gender match up like 98% of the time. clearly there is some connection between sex and gender, they aren't totally discrete concepts.

now you can say he's straw manning gender theorists there but he's not saying something plainly false.
and Neil doesn't contest this point he simply says that the distinction doesn't matter in most circumstances.

they are both saying something true. there is no argument or debunking.

As a good scientist, NDT has to correct the record on what science says BEFORE addressing the political questions that arise from the scientific conclusion.

he doesn't address the political question really. he generally doesn't as a rule.

The way many societies have grouped all kind of activities was based on an understanding of sex/gender that has been shown to be obsolete. We also know of many societies throughout human history that were not stranger to, and even welcomed the concept of gender fluidity, so it's not like neurologists are introducing something new to the human experience when it comes to gender identity.

Rather than deny the truth in order to keep things as we want them to be, we should think about reorganizing our social activities in a way that goes along with the scientific evidence, and banishing LGBT people to insane asylums is not gonna be an option (anymore).

What's happening now regarding the gender identity debate may not be different from the discussions that happened when Galileo proved all the Flat-Earth/geocentrism models incorrect.

again you are talking past the actually crux of the dispute. no one is denying gender non conforming people have always existed

the dispute is

is it a scientific fact that, ALL people have an internal unfalsifiable gender identity somewhere in the brain
and transgender people are simply have a misalignment between their biological sex and internal gender identity.

and should we substitute SEX for "gender identity" when it comes to segregated spaces and sex based rights.


and Ben is correct to say this is without question a social theory of the world, that does not have hard scientific evidence.
it is in not way comparable to heliocentrism as a scientific fact. '


and NDT never claims that it is. so NDT isn't debunking anything, it's not even really a debate. Ben is trying to bait him into a political convo
and NDT doesn't take the bait.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

And why should Ben get to set the framework for the conversation? There are many such frameworks that you could use.

I never said he should, infact I think it's good that NDT doesn't wade into these questions of political values.

I’d say it’s a almost per se a pedagogical question. Certainly you could look at it politically and you could even decide it politically, but there aren’t always great results when politics seep too much into pedagogy.

Neil correctly points out that fluidity in expression is an observable fact and I think finds some ground for agreement that’s outside of less established “theory”

AGAIN the existence of gender fluidity is not what is being debated it is not what is causing the controversy.

what Ben is calling theory is the idea that ALL people have an internal unfalsifiable "gender identity"
and transgender people are simply have a misalignment between their biological sex and internal gender identity.

this is not a scientific fact, it's a theory without a lot of hard scientific evidence.

Agreed that this is largely a question of policy and so, somewhat intrinsically political. I suspect the main reason NDT is in the room is because BS has supported his political arguments through rhetorical and irrelevant appeals to science. I think Tyson does a nice job here of pointing out that science isn’t super relevant.

yah schools are mostly public in america so of course it's political.

Or when the other side resorts to intellectual dishonesty. But, yeah, as I said before I am uninterested in “winning a debate”. To me, this conversation is useful because it untangles what BS (and others) had conflated.

I have no idea what is intellectually dishonest about what he said.
the worst you can say is that he's straw manning gender theorists.

NDT doesn't even contest Ben's claims!

they are two people talking past each other, but people what this to be an own so bad they are seeing things that aren't there.

 

[gry60]

I hate Ben, but we don't need to make up what he said in the clip.

He said "the argument that gender theorists give is sex has no relationship to gender and it doesn't matter that on average women are stronger than men ect"

That's only part of what he said. He started his sentence with "the argument that is typically made by gender theorists is that gender is totally separate from sex " and he follows up with "it seems to me that if we're gonna have the debate, it has to be based on scientific data,[...] which suggests that mammals are binary unless with have people born with intersex defects."

Sex and gender are different concepts

Based on the entirety of the excerpt, that's not what he believes, since he tried using the fact that mammals can either be physically male or female to indicate why he thinks gender theorists are wrong (a point he contradicted in the next sentence by mentioning intersex people).

but the idea that they don't have any relationship to each other seems pretty false

I don't think I said that.

given that peoples sex and gender match up like 98% of the time. clearly there is some connection between sex and gender, they aren't totally discrete concepts

Shapiro's position is not this. His position is that ONLY the sex someone is born with determines their gender. You can infer this by noticing how he frames his interventions (e.g using sex and gender interchangeably). You don't do that unless you think sex and gender are equivalent.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I dunno what y'all bother engaging with osh kosh bosh on this subject.

He mainly wants to rant about progressives, that's it.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

That's only part of what he said. He started his sentence with "the argument that is typically made by gender theorists is that gender is totally separate from sex " and he follows up with "it seems to me that if we're gonna have the debate, it has to be based on scientific data,[...] which suggests that mammals are binary unless with have people born with intersex defects."

Yah the context of debating male and female difference
Ben is claiming that gender theorist are the ones collapsing this distinction by refusing to acknowledge any difference between trans women and biological women.

which is true you see outlets like scientific America forwarding the idea that SEX, (not gender) but SEX is also a spectrum.

if you asked Ben have gender non conforming people in the past existed, like did Prince exist, did boy George exist. did Grace Jones exist

do you think he would be like "uh no there have never been gender non conforming people ever"
cmon man.

again just try to divorce our shared dislike of him for a second.

Based on the entirety of the excerpt, that's not what he believes, since he tried using the fact that mammals can either be physically male or female to indicate why he thinks gender theorists are wrong (a point he contradicted in the next sentence by mentioning intersex people).

no he's claiming gender theorist are the ones uncomfortable acknowledging biological sex difference not that males who present like women don't exist.
obviously they exist. that's not what is causing controversy

Ben said that theorists are wrong to believe that "the argument that gender theorists believe that sex and gender have no relationship"
you said he was wrong.

Shapiro's position is not this. His position is that ONLY the sex someone is born with determines their gender. You can infer this by noticing how he frames his interventions (e.g using sex and gender interchangeably). You don't do that unless you think sex and gender are equivalent.

okay so you need to infer his position, he didn't state that.

Neil says well gender fluid people exist
You notice ben doesn't say "no they don't" if he thought that you would think he would have simple said that.
but instead you want infer something I cna't stop you but I think you are being uncharitable.

you can think that gender is a pointless illusory concept with no strong scientific evidence.
and think that we should base laws and teaching on scientific fact of sex.

this doesn't mean you don't understand that the way we present in socitey is somewhat socially constructed aka gender

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I dunno what y'all bother engaging with osh kosh bosh on this subject.

He mainly wants to rant about progressives, that's it.

I don't know why you engage with rusty on any subject

He mainly wants rant about conservatives, that's it.


get a grip.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I don't know why you engage with rusty on any subject

He mainly wants rant about conservatives, that's it.


get a grip.

Spare me

You are reactionary as **** about transgender issues, don't discuss the issue and a good faith way, and seemingly just bad your post to insult rexanglorum and other progressives that don't see things your way

I am honest about my dislike about of conservatives, I have called myself reactionary over it because they are so dangerous, and I tell people they don't need to respond to my post or engage with me. I actively tell people to block me if they have an issue

Get your head out of your ***, and as you like to say, go touch some grass

Again you seem to not like the ******* energy you put out, being returned to you.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Dude ****ing spare me

You are reactionary as **** about transgender issues, don't discuss the issue and a good faith way, and seemingly just bad your post to insult rexanglorum and other progressives that don't see things your way

I am honest about my dislike about of conservatives, I have called myself reactionary over it because they are so dangerous, and I tell people they don't need to respond to my post or engage with me. I actively tell people to block me if they have an issue

Get your head out of your ***, and you like to say, go touch some grass

Im absolutely not a reactionary if I was a reactionary I would simply not be a progressive.

The people lacking good faith, are the people making up Ben Shapiro quotes,
You don't have an actual argument on the merits so you retreat to meta argument.

I disagree with progressives on a narrow set of issues. that is the opposite of being a reactionary.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Im absolutely not a reactionary if I was a reactionary I would simply not be a progressive.

Yah, I disagree, you are really damn reactionary.

There are tons of progressive people that are reactionary about things other left-wing people do.

You are not unique

The people lacking good faith, are the people making up Ben Shapiro quotes,
You don't have an actual argument on the merits so you retreat to meta argument.

I disagree with progressives on a narrow set of issues. that is the opposite of being a reactionary.

Again, ******* spare me.

Look how you ended your original post...

partisan brain has got people like "omg do yall wanna see a dead body"

With an insult, making a metacommentary about progressives. You do this a ton.

So stop acting like a hypocrite. One can dish it, but clutches his pearls when he gets the same energy returned to him.

My comment about you wasn't an order of magnitude more insulting than what you said about Rex and progressives. So I dunno what I need to get a grip, but you act like some truth-teller calling like it is

Now you in here wanting people to look at Ben Shirpiro's comments in a vacuum, just this clip, when people know about how vile, dishonest, and dangerous the dude's rhetoric can get. Which is being charitable to Ben.

I simply don't wish you to deal with your same ole rhetorical tricks, to act like this convo is anything more than some shallow reactionary venting about progressives.

And other people have it covered, so why bother. I thought my two lines were the best thing I could add to the convo

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Yah, I disagree, you are really damn reactionary.

There are tons of progressive people that are reactionary about things other left-wing people do.

You are not unique




Again, ****ing spare me.

Look how you ended your original post...


With an insult, making a metacommentary about progressives. You do this a ton.

So stop acting like a hypocrite. One can dish it, but clutches his pearls when he gets the same energy returned to him.

My comment about you wasn't an order of magnitude more insulting than what you said about Rex and progressives. So I dunno what I need to get a grip, but you are just some truth-teller calling like it is

Now you in hear wanting people to look at Ben Shirpiro's comments in a vacuum, just this clip, when people know about how vile, dishonest, and dangerous the dude's rhetoric can get. Which is being charitable to Ben.

I simply don't wish you to deal with your same ole rhetorical trick of acting like this convo is anything more than some shallow reactionary venting about progressives. And other people have it covered, so why bother,

No the energy I don't like is people using meta commentary to not engage on the merits.

Whatever salty language I used when interacting with rexanglorum I still engaged him merits of what was in the clip.

You don't see me complaining about how people talk, what I complain about is people using theater critism to avoid addressing the merits of an argument.

The Rex posted the clip, and said that NDT killed Ben. That didn't happen in the clip. He didn't talk about Shapiro's broader homophobia, it was just the clip. and peoples responses to me weren't well keep in mind Bens broader homophobia. It's just the clip.

Just because Ben is a homophobe doesn't mean every statemet he makes on the subject is instantly wrong.


You're right tho people's engagement on this subject is extremely shallow.
Rex compared the controversy surounding gender affirming care to gyno surgery and then ejected from the argument.

Engagement nwith this subject is really shallow but it's not coming from me.



Look at at the end of the day, I'll be proven correct about this, just like I was with defund the police or monkey pox or my other "reactionary" takes.

The NYTimes has already moved towards my position, I encourage everyone to get on the bus before it's too late.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Yah, I disagree, you are really damn reactionary.

There are tons of progressive people that are reactionary about things other left-wing people do.

You are not uniqueq


There are

you can keep repeating this, unless reactionary mean "people I disagree with"
this is just plainly untrue.

reactionary implies reflexive disagreement.
If I was a reactionary it should be really easy to point to places where my stated principles should lead to a clear conclusion
but I reach the opposite conclusion because of my aversion to progressives.

spoiler alert. it doesn't exist.


you can easily predict the places I would agree with progressives and disagree with them,
there is no reactionary irrational position taking.

 

[RustyShackleford]

No the energy I don't like is people using meta commentary to not engage on the merits.

Whatever salty language I used when interacting with rexanglorum I still engaged him merits of what was in the clip.

You threw out an insult, what I said to you and what I said were on the same level.

I have engaged with you on transgender issues multiple times. I simply feel you don't engage with the subject in good faith, and I voiced that opinion

So if you want to hold onto the dream that I can't form a counterargument to your posts, so I have to resort to "meta arguments" to feel superior. Go head, but in reality, I just don't want to engage in this petty reactionary venting again.

You don't see me complaining about how people talk, what I complain about is people using theater critism to avoid addressing the merits of an argument.

The Rex posted the clip, and said that NDT killed Ben. That didn't happen in the clip. He didn't talk about Shapiro's broader homophobia, it was just the clip. and peoples responses to me weren't well keep in mind Bens broader homophobia. It's just the clip.

Just because Ben is a homophobe doesn't mean every statemet he makes on the subject is instantly wrong.


You're right tho people's engagement on this subject is extremely shallow.
Rex compared the controversy surounding gender affirming care to gyno surgery and then ejected from the argument.

Engagement nwith this subject is really shallow but it's not coming from me.

Dude, you are proving my point, you want people to stick to the clip because any further context hurts your argument.

Ben's comments in the clip included straw-manning the other side's argument. It is not just Ben being a bigot is the issue, on this subject, specifically, he is dishonest.

Look at at the end of the day, I'll be proven correct about this, just like I was with defund the police or monkey pox or my other "reactionary" takes.

The NYTimes has already moved towards my position, I encourage everyone to get on the bus before it's too late.

Good grief, this is wild pathetic

Listing times you think you were right, to claim you will be proven right again

No mention of all the times you have been wrong about stuff, because, you know

Dude, go outside and touch some grass

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You threw out an insult, what I said to you and what I said were on the same level.

I have engaged with you on transgender issues multiple times. I simply feel you don't engage with the subject in good faith, and I voiced that opinion

So if you want to hold onto the dream that I can't form a counterargument to your posts, so I have to resort to "meta arguments" to feel superior. Go head, but in reality, I just don't want to engage in this petty reactionary venting again.



Dude, you are proving my point, you want people to stick to the clip because any further context hurts your argument.

Ben's comments in the clip included straw-manning the other side's argument. It is not just Ben being a bigot is the issue, on this subject, specifically, he is dishonest.


Good grief, this is wild pathetic

Listing times you think you were right, to claim you will be proven right again

No mention of all the times you have been wrong about stuff, because, you know

Dude, go outside and touch some grass

there is certainly something wildly pathetic going on.
the mental gymnastic you were doing to protect progressives on this issue in the past completely fits the bill.


but hey man don't let me stop you, you can be party to absurdities
as long as no one is a big ol meanie to progressives. I got you.



and when it all comes crashing down you can pretend like you were never there.

 

[RustyShackleford]

there is certainly something wildly pathetic going on.
the mental gymnastic you were doing to protect progressives on this issue in the past completely fits the bill.


but hey man don't let me stop you, you can be party to absurdities
as long as no one is a big ol meanie to progressives. I got you.



and when it all comes crashing down you can pretend like you were never there.

Nah dude, you are being wild and pathetic right now

Actually, name a time you were right about something, I was plainly wrong, and then I acted as if I was never there

In fact, use the issues you mentioned specifically, Monkeypox and Defund the Police.

So this thread how always right you have been, and how Rusty hides

Because to me it looks like you are just pulling self-aggrandizing nonsense out of your *** right now

Which is extremely pathetic IMO

 

[1995]

Rex compared the controversy surounding gender affirming care to gyno surgery and then ejected from the argument.

...

Look at at the end of the day, I'll be proven correct about this, just like I was with defund the police or monkey pox or my other "reactionary" takes.

The NYTimes has already moved towards my position, I encourage everyone to get on the bus before it's too late.

Don't let me stop you from patting yourself on the back, but did you ever consider that there might possibly be other reasons that people have an aversion to engaging you on these topics?

 

[RustyShackleford]

you can keep repeating this, unless reactionary mean "people I disagree with"
this is just plainly untrue.

Nah, I believe it to be true

You can disagree, that is fine

But I will keep saying it because I honestly feel it is the correct assessment of your behavior

reactionary implies reflexive disagreement.
If I was a reactionary it should be really easy to point to places where my stated principles should lead to a clear conclusion
but I reach the opposite conclusion because of my aversion to progressives.

spoiler alert. it doesn't exist.


you can easily predict the places I would agree with progressives and disagree with them,
there is no reactionary irrational position taking.

So your argument is that you can't be reactionary because you are predictable?

Don't really buy that

I think the fact after someone posts something innocuous about trans issues I know you will go off and on about it, rant about progressives, be uncharitable to people on one side of the argument, be charitable to conservatives, and generally act like everyone that doesn't see it his way is being dishonest, or can't think straight because of partisanship is something I see as reactionary, even though it is predictable

I am someone who has disagreements with some of the arguments trans activists and other progressives make.

But I feel productive convos can't take place because of people that act like you.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Nah dude, you are being wild and pathetic right now

Because name a time you were right about something, I was plainly wrong, and then I acted as if I was never there

In fact, use the issues you mentioned specifically, Monkeypox and Defund the Police.

So this thread how always right you have been, and how Rusty hides

Because to me it looks like you are just pulling self-aggrandizing nonsense out of your *** right now

Which is extremely pathetic IMO

here is a couple.

you mocked me for saying that people at gender clinics are letting activist ideology on gender influence their treatment for minors experiencing gender dysphoria.
Since then we have whistleblowers reporting ideological pressure influencing treatment decisions.

from the new book on tavistock gender clinic.

You told me I was wrong to question the story of the protagonist surrounding the drop Kiwi farms movement.

it turns out Kiwiwfamrs wasn't the one harrassing Keffals, and Keffals knew this the entire time.
it seems she's a scammer also, she took all the money she raised off go fund me, never filed the lawsuit she promised to file, and now she has admitted herself to rehab for heroin addiction

we agree on most things, so naturally the disagreements that have a conclusion are few and far between.

 

[sneeker]

Yes, it is.

However, Shapiro is using a false statement - gender and sex are not different concepts - to support his political position.

This question, as it relates to gender identity, carries the same assumption


As a good scientist, NDT has to correct the record on what science says BEFORE addressing the political questions that arise from the scientific conclusion.

The way many societies have grouped all kind of activities was based on an understanding of sex/gender that has been shown to be obsolete. We also know of many societies throughout human history that were not stranger to, and even welcomed the concept of gender fluidity, so it's not like neurologists are introducing something new to the human experience when it comes to gender identity.

Rather than deny the truth in order to keep things as we want them to be, we should think about reorganizing our social activities in a way that goes along with the scientific evidence, and banishing LGBT people to insane asylums is not gonna be an option (anymore).

What's happening now regarding the gender identity debate may not be different from the discussions that happened when Galileo proved all the Flat-Earth/geocentrism models incorrect.

as much as I don't like Ben as a Republican(?), I do agree with him with the discussion about gender/sex. there is no such thing for humans to have gender fluidity nor gender flexibility as anatomy defines us. we are not asexual beings like some life forms are. just because one thinks that a person feels/think to be the other gender spectrum doesn't make them as such. they are still what they are anatomically,culturally, politically, socially speaking. it is not obsolete but brings order as well. opening up a can of worms like gender fluidity is chaotic as there is no way of determining one is pretending to be as such. although I must say that we should improve our treatment of others with their sexuality behaviors, it doesn't mean that we have to change and set new norms just to please a non-existing issue just because a few wanted it to be so and so. just look at this one for example and say if there is nothing wrong with her.....

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Nah, I believe it to be true

You can disagree, that is fine

But I will keep saying it because I honestly feel it is the correct assessment of your behavior


So your argument is that you can't be reactionary because you are predictable?

again if im a reactionary, it should be really easy to find me taking a position that violetes by basic principles.
we see Glenn Greenwald do this all the time.

you can't do it, because it doesn't happen. im not a reactionary, you just don't agree. that's fine.


also I am probably more progressive on trans issues than like 60% of the public.
if you can't have a productive argument about trans issues with me i guess there i no hope of convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Don't let me stop you from patting yourself on the back, but did you ever consider that there might possibly be other reasons that people have an aversion to engaging you on these topics?

I think these are topics that people actually haven't researched and have bought into them because of broader ideological commitments.
I used to be the exact same way, I bought into a lot of the gender stuff because I assumed the science was strong.

it's not strong and psychologically difficult to confront being misled by people on your own side.

when consertives makes arguments questioning gender stuff, it's easy to dismiss.
when a progressive does it's harder.

 

[RustyShackleford]

here is a couple.

you mocked me for saying that people at gender clinics are letting activist ideology on gender influence their treatment for minors experiencing gender dysphoria.
Since then we have whistleblowers reporting ideological pressure influencing treatment decisions.

from the new book on tavistock gender clinic.

Pretty sure I said that the treatment outcomes we are getting are because of bad incentives in the healthcare system. Then you mentioned international examples

Then you brought up Tavistock, and I pointed out the Tories have been in charge of the NHS, and that other trans activists actually being happy they were closing. And the fact it was the only clinic that got overwhelmed incentivized quick treatment. I was saying bad incentives lead to bad outcomes and you were arguing it was all ideological. So I don't see how this proves I was wrong, even here it mentions how the setup of the place help lead to the problems

So you can make up whatever fan fiction you want to act superior, but not one else has to buy it

You told me I was wrong to question the story of the protagonist surrounding the drop Kiwi farms movement.

it turns out Kiwiwfamrs wasn't the one harrassing Keffals, and Keffals knew this the entire time.
it seems she's a scammer also, she took all the money she raised off go fund me, never filed the lawsuit she promised to file, and now she has admitted herself to rehab for heroin addiction

How did I run and hide about this?

Did you post and tag me with this new info so I can address it?

And I am pretty sure that convos involved also Kiwifarms as a general new threat. That was the chunk of the exchanges, me arguing that things are escalating and it being an example and you saying they have been around for a while

So hey, think this post just proves how pathetic you are acting right now

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Pretty sure I said that the treatment outcomes we are getting are because of bad incentives in the healthcare system. Then you mentioned international examples

Then you brought up Tavistock, and I pointed out the Tories have been in charge of the NHS, and that other trans activists actually being happy they were closing. And the fact it was the only clinic that got overwhelmed incentivized quick treatment. I was saying bad incentives lead to bad outcomes and you were arguing it was all ideological. So I don't see how this proves I was wrong, even here it mentions how the setup of the place help lead to the problems

So you can make up whatever fan fiction you want to act superior, but not one else has to buy it

yah and I agree there are other factors but I said simply because the tories are in charge of the government it doesn't mean that it means that people on the ground who work at gender clinics are conservatives.
and you have there in black and white progressives activist groups were pressuring doctors to adopt these treatments. and it seemed to impact treatment.

it's not fan fictions, it's right there in black and white.
and to assume that wouldn't happen in america a far less regulated more entrepreneurial health care system is crazy.

How did I run and hide about this?

Did you post and tag me with this new info so I can address it?

And I am pretty sure that convos involved also Kiwifarms as a general new threat. That was the chunk of the exchanges, me arguing that things are escalating and it being an example and you saying they have been around for a while

So hey, think this post just proves how pathetic you are acting right now

if you missed the story update I guess you missed it.
I actually don't make a habit of doing victory laps on things I was right about, but I can in the future if you would like.

 

[RustyShackleford]

osh kosh bosh

Since you were right supposedly right about Monkeypox and Defund the police, are you gonna bring up our exchanges in those threads

-Like you being banned from the Monkeypox thread because you were upset public health official would not call out transmission among gay men/

You got baited my Lionblood, then flippant with everyone else, lost your cool, and started posting a white supremacist 4Chan meme to insult people's intelligence

Which led to you getting a thread ban

And I told you that you were doing a bad job getting your point across.

-Or in the Defund the police discussion when you ranted for over a month.

And I point out that some of your data points regarding the election outcome didn't make sense time-wise

That not activists are unified around abolishing the police and using my own experience with local activism losing patience

The point I made about the police unions being a major roadblock and veto policy was actually the only point you said you respected.

It only got confrontational when the entire thread started clowning you, and you started insulting people saying they only think a certain way to get payback on the police

No mention of these things?