No, thanks. It's quite correct.

Words aren't abstract. They are sounds (or, written symbols). They are not like numbers. So, no, i don't mean to say that. It might be worth reducing the discussion further to "sounds", but this would just result in the second sentence I've put forth here. Words are sounds, for this purpose.

I do think that was a very much worthwhile question to ask though.

This is a normative recommendation. Your saying it ought to be the case that we treat offense as if it is solely the responsibility of the receiver. — Nils Loc

No, clearly I am not doing this. I wouldn't open a reply by telling someone what they meant to say, my dude. The chances are the rest of your post wont make sense.

What I said is what I mean: The claim is that offense is a reaction internal to the receiver of information (and sometimes, not even in receipt of information, but that's another issue). Offense does not exist in a word, or a phrase, or in saying something. It exists, solely, in the mind of hte offended person. It's not been 'taken in' from without. That's the claim, and I would appreciate treating it as such.

We'd have better control over ourselves if we could pause and not reciprocate the bait of an insult, whatever the intention behind it, and escalate a loss of self control in ourselves. — Nils Loc

This, for certain, is the normative aspect: One should note the fact outlined above (again, that's 'my claim' not something I'm willing to just say you have to accept, but on this account...) and then behave as you say. I think that's best for people's mental health and general co-operative principles. So that is a normative position, and its harder to defend if the initial 'fact' im positing isn't understood or accepted. But the two are not the same thing at all. A=Boiling water hurts. B=Therefore, don't touch it. I was claiming A, in relation to offense. But i agree with B.

Oh but they do hurt, since we are not so disciplined to be be immune to the effect they might otherwise have on us. — Nils Loc

Hmm. This is a tricky one. I can't really disagree, because that is obviously what happens - but if we focus on 'discipline' the fact I'm arguing for still obtains. The effect they 'might other have' on us seems to me to be an effect that we have re-recorded in our psyche, ready to be deployed upon receiving information of a certain kind which we have, internally, discussed with ourselves and settled on .. usually, pre-consciously, but sometimes consciously. But, equally, people are capable of jettisoning that reactive faculty almost entirely. I find it very hard to get offended by anything. I can be incensed by what I might think is unjust, or irrational or whatever but I, personally, don't tend to feel offense these days.

Ultimately, you're right that this is what happens but I don't thikn it butters bread for the arguments hereabouts.

Try to explain to your mom that she is totally responsible for her reaction when you call her an "ugly bitch". No one knows if you meant to be offensive. You gave no offense (because you can't). She took offense. It was an empirical test, which yielded some data. Now you just need to train your mom to accept that she carries the responsibility for her reactions every time you insult her. — Nils Loc

Roughly speaking, I agree with this. I just would want to have an appended conversation about the responsibility on someone for not letting their emotions get the better of them and saying something like that. I don't think they're responsible for the other person's reaction though.

I want to be really clear, also, before some edgelord tries this line or agument: Incitement and offense are totally different things. We need to read them across one another. I accept that words have power, and people have reactions to words. I simply don't lay those reactions at the feet of those saying words. Incitement is different. Incitement is hijacking the internal reasoning mechanisms of an erstwhile emotionally stable person.

Ftr, This is something I have explicitly worked on with my wife, and she is much, muuuuch happier for it. My mother, on the other hand, seems to enjoy being offended by fucking everything. We don't talk much. She's not a happy person.

But it also routinely succeeds. You suggest that all the victims of verbal abuse choose to be victims of verbal abuse. — Nils Loc

No I don't, at all. Again, please do not tell me what I'm saying. I am not suggesting it is a choice to be offended. I am suggesting it is a choice not to work on your emotional stability such that offense serves you no purpose. They are different. I have a lot of sympathy for being reasonably offended. I just also hold this position on bettering one's lot. It's a choice to view offense as someone elses fault. Its a choice to excuse your own actions due to something someone else said to you. There's umpteen videos across the internet about 'fuck around and find out'. Why not grow the fuck up?

It sounds incredibly callous — Nils Loc

To someone who cannot control their emotions, of course it would. If you feel you're being asked to do something impossible, it will sound both callous and irrational. But I have empirical evidence that this is not so... People do this all the time. That the majority of people don't is a symptom of... well, something I personally view to be a real shame. If trolls had no power, I think the world would be better off. So I agree with what you're putting forward as a normative prescription, and I enact that in my daily life wherever I can, usually to great benefit. But that isn't what I've argued for thus far. I just happen to agree with it, now that it's brought up.

I think probably we can simply state: If some people can do this, all people can do this. If all people can do this, I, at least, would want to say they should.

The bold seems to put paid to the argument I'm making, anyhow. I understand this may be rejected, but you seem to accept some people can do this, and sometimes intended offense fails. That's all we need.

second subject of experience being in a different spatial location to the original subject of experience, and hence having different experience and memories, and ipso facto not being the same person. — Down The Rabbit Hole

This is key. Even on relatively acceptable arguments about psychological continuity being what matters for continued existence, this difference will always betray the attempt to say there is no appreciable difference between the two 'people'. They are different people. The point is that it doesn't matter. Someone will continue to be 'you'.

I also suggest, it is metaphysically not possible to be two people at once. They are different people.

Oh Banno.

When you're older, you'll understand this a bit better.

The worst I've read is a piece by a philosopher unfortunately, Andrea Long Chu. I came into it in good faith. I'd been told that this writer was particularly cutting and could offer something other writers were not really doing: Critical theory as applied to itself.

It turned out none of that was present. You can get a feel for their stuff in this .

Left Is Not Woke was pretty good though (Susan Neiman).

For pop-woke, I would never stoop so low. Just as I wouldn't read a book by Charlie Kirk.

Overall, though, I think your comment is a little... one-sided. I think people have a been mor enuanced than you're saying, and that good points have been made on both sides. Obviously, I have a relatively secure position but that doesn't mean I haven't been given pause. Its been a really robust thread and I've enjoyed it. Not as predictable as you describe, I don't think.

Haha, I like you.

I'm not sure i understand hte question there. Can be a little clearer? I've never said words cannot be given between interlocutors, to my knowledge. If I have, it's definitely a mis-statement of my position.

Words physically move through the air to ear drums. Intentions do not. That's the distinction that is lost in the claim that one can in fact 'offend another' rather than cause them to become offended, in themselves.

It's like because its trite, immature and ignores the specific criteria that causes prostitution to obtain. Also, attempting to denigrate other pursuits by calling them prostitution(which is where this sort of thing comes from) both continues the negative stigmas around sex work by trying to make other pursuits look bad by association, and also illustrates that one isn't sufficiently thinking about what they're saying, to begin with.

Then again, maybe not aye :roll:

I know a few of those examples, and the two i know personally have successfully (to their knowledge) remained anonymous. Absolutely boss shit getting through school like that and hten being a truly productive member of society without debt.

False. You're reading the stat wrong. What the stat said, was that among the prison population, of the crimes that people had been convicted of, that trans people were 4 times more likely to have been convicted of a sexual-related offense. — Mijin

Unfortunately bud, this is the exact wrong reading.

I have posted the statistics in full elsewhere, because they are on my desktop computer at home, but suffice to say the conclusion goes like this

Of the TOTAL population, who is in prison for sex crimes

Of non-trans males: 0.04%
Of trans women: 0.16%.

This is of the entire population, what ratio of those groups are in for sex crime. This is nothing to do with comparing the different types of offense within hte trans prison population. I am happy to post the full breakdown when I get home this evening. However, your comments are exactly right, and had I presented the stats the way you describe, that's the right response. Good stuff (i am not being sarcastic).

Go ahead then: what's someone with XXY chromosomes and a mix of internal and external genitalia? — Mijin

Do the have an active SRY gene? You've asked the wrong question. And I've already given pieces of information that tell against it.

Find me a DsD which is not sex-specific.

That said, I have my own preference for thinking that they are actual, not ideal, existents — Janus

In good company - I agree, tentatively.

Not at all, I've explained in quite minute detail why this is hte case, on my account.

Partial survival is survival. — Mijin

This would have been a clearer way to illustrate hte point, thanks Mijin.

Run this for those who bag on Trump? Is that protesting too much?

I don't care, that just seems an odd double standard to raise.

Lula was a girl from a humble town
She had a mean drunk daddy; liked to push her around
He sold what he called 'poor man's cocaine'
But the police called it methamphetamine
One night she sunk her knife in the small of his back
Ain't no one gonna find where she buried him at
She hopped a train up the river into Omaha
Did some dirty damn things and bought a broke-down car

She'd say 'I ain't getting younger, I just wanna feel good
I ain't gonna do what you want cause you tell me I should
I'm just gonna sit right down, have a smoke
Somebody buy me a beer; somebody tell me a joke

Now people do funny things to numb their pain
And Lula drank liquor to forget her name
She used to sleep it off under an old Oak tree
In the Pontiac she bought with her money from the streets

She'd say "I ain't getting younger, I just wanna feel good
I ain't gonna do what you want cause you tell me I should
I'm just gonna sit right down; have a smoke
Somebody buy me a beer somebody tell me a joke

She was crying for a life that she never knew
What could have been, how it was and what she oughta do
She wipe the tears from her eyes and shut her mouth
When her feet hit the river all the lights went out

She'd say "I ain't getting younger, I just wanna feel good
I ain't gonna do what you want cause you tell me I should
I'm just gonna sit right down; have a smoke
Somebody buy me a beer; somebody tell me a joke
Somebody buy me a beer; somebody tell me a joke

I am currently obsessed with this guy from Nebraska, by way of Nashville named Evan Bartels. Dude has some of the most incredible songs I've heard in a decade. Absolutely hear-wrenching rural story telling mostly, but there's other stuff. My current favourite:



She used to watch him roll his cigarettes
On the front porch wearing her Sunday best
They ain't been to church in fifteen years
Miracles still happen..
They don't happen here

She had to sell her mama's ring and her piano
Cause he pissed away their mortgage on his booze
Just a shell of the man she fell in love with
She'd be damned if she'd let him drown her too

She'd say in the morning I could hit Montana
If I drive through all night
I could get lost out in them mountains
Find a spot deep in the pines

She's a mama to a son who didn't make it
She found him by his self in his room
She can still see his face in the moonlight
Eyes half open on the floor
Lips a gentle shade of blue

She blamed it on herself for years after
But there's not a goddamn thing she could have done
What's left when your soul is taken from you
There's nothing in her heart of the woman she once was

She'd say in the morning I could hit Montana
If I drive through all night
I could get lost out in them mountains
Find a spot deep in the pines
I need a place where I can wander
Question the meaning of my life
Maybe i'll find what I am after
In the land they call Big Sky

Skyfall was also amazing, so James Bond has a knack for decent tunes even now.

but the best supported theory of consciousness right now is that there is no such thing as continuity of consciousness. — RogueAI

That does not seem right, at all. There is no cessation of consciousness during sleep. There is a dampening. Your pre-and-sub-conscious are all fully intact. It is only normal, waking consciousness which has been stymied. This butters no bread for the discussion. Suspension is not cessation is also worth noting.

I think that is an example of poor emotional intelligence. — Athena

Hmm, the problem with this is that it is not. What is a lack of emotional intelligence is thinking that someone else can say something which carries with it a reaction in yourself, and then that somehow that reaction is on the other person. This is immature, unrealistic thinking. It is standard for those who live in fairly land where the realities of life aren't quite landing and wishful thinking is the order of the day. Or, I guess, those who acknowledge all this and just wish it were difference, hence both possibilities of wishful, and delusional thinking.

In the real world, as I have clearly explained, offense cannot be given. It is not possible. There is no mechanism available for it. It isn't a move open to humans. The fact that you chose to not response to me, but to someone objective to me serves me quite well in understanding why you think the way you do: avoiding the point. A good way to illustrate how this is not possible, is discussing how being offended 'on behalf' is not possible. The same lack of thinking leads to both erroneous claims.

Offense is a reaction inside a person's mind, to something they have interpreted, yes? Yes. That's what it is, and we know this. Where in this discussion could there be room for A's actions to carry with it B's reaction? Causing offense? Yes, sure. But causes need not be related to effects. Quite often, social media users will be caused to be offended by something which was not aimed at them, isn't reasonably readable that way, and ultimately has nothing to do with them. It caused their offense, but the offense wasn't in any way attached to the cause. Tricky? Sure. So let's go over transitive offense to try to clear this up.

Now, I was thinking last night (and talking to my wife) about 'necessary and sufficient' conditions for something being 'on behalf" and took two criteria in mind

1) acknowledging an insult (I need restrict this to insults proper, and not something that is 'potentially insulting' for reasons that will become clear), and,

2) caring, in some fashion, about the effect it could have on the person/group it's aimed at.

Totally reasonable conditions, and there's the fact I cannot get around which is that despite any protests of language, talking about 'being insulted' is describing something which clearly actually happens. Again, I'm fairly sure it's not 'on behalf' but nevertheless, I accept that this phrase is standard (it just means the state of experiencing insult, not that you were acted upon as that is not possible, in this sense).

Now, in discussing the actual issue I still have two pretty glaring objections to the claim:

1: "On behalf" appears to be strictly transitive. To do something 'on behalf' of someone seems to mean "in place of" someone. Voting on behalf, acting on behalf, defending someone when they are not there etc... But this requires that there is something to be transposed through you. If party A is not offended, this is where I would say it is not possible for you to be offended on behalf as there is no offence for you to carry through. This also seems to imply that consent is required. Where someone doesn't even feel the thing, that doesn't seem possible.

2: On behalf implies you are conveying the person/group's view (which, if neutral, couldn't be offence - nb: when talking about groups let's assume there's a democratic consensus that could reasonably be conveyed)). If your view doesn't align, it would be very hard to say you were conveying the view of the group, rather than your view in light of the group.

However, if they were offended, and I wasn't, I could still convey their offense on behalf, whether or not I cared/understood/empathized. Lawyers do this constantly, as do several others types of people like parents, advocates to charity or similar.

I think what someone would say - that empathy is an example - unfortunately betrays this issue - if you're empathizing with someone's plight, that means you feel a certain way, and you are incensed/upset/whatever about the issue from a 3p perspective - not feeling their feelings. Not invalid, not unimportant or anything like that - but it seems that it's more akin to "feeling sorry for" or "feeling angry for" and not "on behalf" (which seems to be a conveying of the actual subject's view/feeling/intent).

I feel bad when I see a child laughed at for having no one turn up to their birthday (actually, i completely fall apart and become somewhat inconsolable for a time). But I'm not conveying anything about the child. I am expressing how i feel about it. It destroys me, because my view is that no kid should have to deal with that inter alia. I feel bad for the kid on my own account.

This then also shades into things that can be insulting rather than are insults. In those cases, I don't even think you can be reasonably become offended (though, clearly you can unreasonably become offended). If you read a sign that, in your mind specifically, without recourse to any other individual is "potentially offensive" to (lets just stick with, for ease) trans people then that is an emotion all of your own, based on your own views and your own internal circumstances, I should think.. Here, you, personally, think trans people should be referred to in X way, and that this isn't the case pissed you off. Those are your feelings of offence about that group, as I see it.

A reverse eg: I am pretty openly bisexual. I always have been. People used to point out to me things(or lack of things, i guess) which they assumed I would be offended by and I simply didn't read them the same way. I didn't see why It would be offensive and refused to pretend I did. In those cases, these people are definitely not offended for me. They are offended because of their personal view about how bisexuals should be represented/included/what have you. Granted, I think people are grossly oversensitive and find offence literally everywhere, but these examples aren't those. Perhaps it would be more stark to say in several instances, I was incensed by their intimation that I wasn't intellectually capable of being "correctly offended" or something.

So, to sum up: I think "offense" is a concept which is simply not what it purports to be. The problem of 'other minds' seems to imply we can't possibly feel anything on behalf of others and I would say that's true - you can't feel someone else's feelings, and even more thoroughly, cannot feel someone else's feelings if they don't have them. These are the exact same reasons why you(a) cannot package offense into an utterance and send it over the airwaves to (b). You can simply intend that the person becomes offended - given this routinely fails, it is obvious that there is no offense in the utterance.

Unless there is some explanation of how offence can be packaged in speech (i.e, the reactionary internal state of mind "being offended") and sent over the airwaves, the argument doesn't even get off the ground. It's just a neat way to jettison responsibility for our own emotional states. Reality doesn't really care about the witterings of self-help ghouls from the 90s.

We have been running on the belief that true science is amoral and has nothing to do with our feelings. AmadeusD is a man of his time. — Athena

Your underhanded attempts to insult are keenly noted, Athena. Ironic to the nth. Particularly when you do not have the gall to actually tag me or address me directly - addressing a third party with your thoughts about one is a sure-fire sign you are not emotionally intelligent.

not liking Dylan's appearance. — Mijin

Right, so what I've said is this:

Anyone who approaches me as overbearing, childish and intrusive will get the same response. Given the three words I've just used, you have absolutely no possible route to pretend this is trivial. These are negative traits whereever they are found. You seem to be obsessed with Dylan's trans-ness. I am not. — AmadeusD

You are either lying, or not reading my responses before replying. The latter is impossible, since you're quoting my comments. So you must be lying. That is a real shame. Luckily, there is evidence for what i'm claiming (in that I have been explicitly talking about traits which are not appearance).
You are utterly bereft of a sense of reality if you don't think this is an attitude people take with anything presented as such. The reason Marshall Appelwhite was so uncanny was similar: He came across uncanny, somehow performatively askance from what a human expects to see, behaviourally (not physically). He was wide-eyed, overbearing, intense and intrusive with how he presented himself. He wasn't trans, or female. Therefore, your claim is absolute bunk and an attempt to impugn reasoning you don't enjoy. I don't give a shit what you enjoy. These are reasons, and either you accept them and disagree with the conclusion, or you don't. What isn't open is lying about them. If that happens again, you will not get a response.

But yeah, I'll stop saying there are zero examples. — Mijin

You should probably just stop making claims, and asking 'gotcha' questions with sarcastic quips when you clearly are not informed on this subject. Those were links I could into that sentence. Besides this, as with preventing males from entering female spaces before this mass psychosis occurred, a single example is enough.

It's extremely misleading to depict them as predators — Mijin

You are simply making shit up to distract from the point made (though, i appreciate that your prior comments were very level):
Compared to non-trans male, trans women are fully four times more likely to commit a sexual offence. This has nothing to do with their status as victims. It has to do with their status as predators. Two things can be true at once. In any case, the last time I did a deep dive (I am not willing to do this right now, becaus this thread is inconsequential to my life) it turned out that the claim they are more likely to be assaulted that give out was actually minimally incorrect. I've just run a small set of prompts through chaGPT and got the following, though I don't suggest this is conclusive:

"Unofficial data, such as the Trans Murder Monitoring project, notes that in Europe only 8 cases of trans and gender-diverse people murdered occurred between October 1, 2023 and September 30, 2024"

That's all of Europe. Not trans women murdered in that period? Well, this is too many to give an overview. Spain alone:

"Here’s a clear and sourced statistic from 2024:

In Spain, there were 48 women murdered due to gender-related violence in 2024. Additionally, 9 minors were also killed in crimes perpetrated by their fathers or their mother’s spouse, and at least 6 additional femicides were committed by individuals who were not current or former partners. This figure marks the lowest number of gender‑violence‑related murders in Spain since 2003."

Let's first acknowledge that final line - that's amazing. But you can see we're looking at probably 8x the number v trans women. Now, I am aware the comparison you're making is trans women: victim vs perpetrator. That's fine, but unfortunately, the claims that trans women are more likely be assaulted come largely from self-report as they are recorded by their identified gender. This means that no meaningful statement can be made about it. But we know that trans women are killed at a much lower rate than non-trans females, and that they commit sex crimes at a rate four times higher than non-trans male.

If this doesn't give you any pause, we're living on different planets my dude.

What I would say though is I have, and will continue to push back against the claim that sex is binary, because intersex is a thing — Mijin

But this is absolutely, objectively wrong. Every intersex person is either male or female. That is how intersex conditions work- they are categorised by which sex they affect. It is a misnomer, and misleading misinformation to claim intersex people are neither male nor female, or a third sex. That is plainly absurd.

Are you saying what you experience is made by you, yet you are not aware of how you make these experiences? That is a very odd position. — MoK

This is exactly wrong. You don't know how you produce your every-day experiences, let alone hallucinations. There is simply zero reason to entertain hte idea that these entities are real beyond my mind's creation. It is not an odd position in any sense of that word.

I cannot imagine how you could make these entities in your head, answering your question while you don't know the answers. — MoK

There has never been any evidence that this has occurred. That you can access your pre-conscious when in an altered state is very well understood.

There must be other real entities if they answer your questions, since you don't have answers to your questions — MoK

Which makes this, also, exactly wrong.

You are thinking in terms of bodily survival. — hypericin

I am, quite explicitly, not. On a psychological conception, it doesn't change anything about what i've said. Either you survive or you don't. The intuitions being tested are at what point, and under what criteria does the 1 or 0 obtain. There is no way ot argue for "partial survival" because one cannot be and not be.

To make this clearer, what I'm saying is that if you're wanting to give me a "0-0.1-0.2-0.3...1" spectrum, then you need to say at what exact point survival obtains. It cannot be part here, more there. Either the person survives at point A or not. I do not see there is another way for this to run. You simply cannot survive and not survive.

I guess strictly speaking, even if what that "something beyond" is is just a world of physical existents, it can be said that they are noumenal to us. On the other hand we perceive objects, so the objects are not unknown to us even though there may be things about them we don't or even cannot, know. For example it seems we could never be certain about the ultimate or most basic constitution of physical things. — Janus

I think this is well-worded. The noumena aren't necessarily esoteric, just as if they are in a room we can't access, so its not as 'mysterious' as one might think. But we can at least securely infer that they are there, or we'd not perceive anything.

Yeah, reading it back it's confusing. My point is the 'truth' seems to function the way I've described, anyway.
The example to give, which I think is more closely a description of the above, is Kant's noumena.
They are logically required for the system to get moving (and it seems, for us to have any interaction with anything). Consider:

P1 = I can see an apple(1), and I know (through other's observations) that my system of perception works in x way to produce the images I use to 'observe' anything (2).

P2 = due to my knowledge in (2), i can confirm that there is something beyond my scope to observe which must be there to cause (1) to obtain.

C = now that I know (1) and because of (2) B obtains, I have assured knowledge of B, without ever having assessed its possibility. It is inherent in the knowing of (1) and (2), but is not the same thing as either of them.

As best I can tell, this, but across fields we could theoretical observe, is how "truth" functions, particularly in science.

I've actually not seen/read Notebook. Possibly aging myself (downward...).

Yes, it's pretty difficult. I found it extremely hard to conceive of my dementia stricken grandmother as no longer there. There's no where for her to go, and she didn't become a new person. I can't see a way out of hte matrix other than discomfort with the person you know being different.

The difference between ages 15 and 65 might be the same as the difference between 65 and 66 for someone who hit dementia at that time. I don't see any real difference I guess, in those changes and how they might result in a different person.

Hmm. What else is there to truth? I can't see anything particularly special about observing directly something B which is logically required for A to obtain, and we know A obtains.

This seems to be hte method of truth-finding, in any case?

How do we determine the conditions that make either possible if not by observation and logic? — Janus

You're missing the point. We do this, and gain secure inferences which are not part of the logical or empirical assessments at hand. I don't quite see other examples among philosophers than with Kant, and if you reject his positions then you wont accept this argument anyway, as he's put it better than anyone before or since.

The fact (in concept) is when we make "truth" evident in situation A, we often are committed to accepting "truth" in some realm we have not assessed.

If A then B, but we've only assessed A. and A obtains. We haven't assessed B at all. If you see a transitive holding weight, that's fine. I don't.

Beautiful track. Chris is quite an underrated lyricist. Tbf, he has one of the most incredibly voices humans have produced, so can see why.. lol.

This comes somewhat from the context (which is why I gave myself an out for misunderstanding) but I'll give it a go:

Partial survival would mean partly you survive, and partly you don't. That seems plainly absurd. Not that "part of you survives" in the sense outlined below. The way you've worded it seems to indicate you think you can survive, and not survive in parts. "you" is what's in question here, so that seems impossible.

Not all of you surviving might just mean you've lost your legs or some particular aspect of you like the memories which make you confident in x skill you supposedly have. The survival is vouchsafed, and we need only discuss what survived for us to still say "you" (or me, or whatever).

I think the key for my objection (its not really an objection proper) is that the concept of survival is a 1 or 0. The way you survive seems to be the ground of the intuitions we're testing (and this would lead to your claims of an arbitrary point at which someone remains themselves through different processes we're discussing). It could be that you didn't mean to say this at all, and that's fair - I will simply be on the wrong train here in that case.

Can you give me an example of any truth which is determinable in any way other than by observation or logic, and also explain just how that truth can be determined? — Janus

How I feel is not observable, but the truth of it exist only within myself and cannot be observed, even by me, because I am having the feelings. Direct experience is also a source of truth. It is clear that this is not logical or empirical (in the sense meant by "observation" anyway. Probably is empirical in some other sense).

To be honest, these standards, particularly the last, sort of do seem to be "the celebration of the novel and transgressive for their own sake." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it is quite clear that what's being pushed back on is the hijacking of progressive ideals within a non-progressive social framework. The controversy is over the fact that Number and I (and others) probably view the "left wing progressive" notions as the non-progressive, semi-bigoted versions of what to do.

That has been my biggest problem in some forums. I perceive this prejudice against feelings as shutting down our awareness of ourselves and others, and even our imaginations. That kills our creativity and wisdom. Does that statement seem right? — Athena

Not to me. These functions are optimized in different places. I don't think reading/crunching numbers is one where 'feelings' are helpful as opposed to hypotheses and conclusions (one will ultimately 'feel' things about, and throughout that process but the outputs should essentially be stripped of them, on this account).

However, something like politics often requires feelings along with good, robust critical thinking skills and often statistical understanding (these requiring a removal of feeling to be truly useful, on this account).

It is probably the case that in each fora there are over and understeps to these ideas (again, on this account) but the basic concept of separating feelings from factual (i.e universally presentable) findings seems useful and "the case", as it were.

And so partial survival is not some abstract construct, it is already part of everyday reality. — hypericin

I don't think this is right. Either you survive or you don't. How you survive certain seems up for grabs, but there you cannot be 'part there'. You're either an altered, different person, or you are you. That's how the concept of Identity works. Whether there could be two you's is more interesting. If what you mean is that not all of you survives that's quite a different claim and might bear some clarification.

A fair point. I can't say I'd think the same. I would also add that lucidity, at times, tends to come with all but end-stage degenerative mental diseases. That lucidity likely makes it impossible to say the person is no longer there.

Your reasons all boil down to you just finding her appearance "uncanny" to use your word. Yes, that is just you not liking the appearance of a transperson, you have not rationalized it at all. — Mijin

False. I have given you the reasons people are made uncomfortable. This occurs when anyone does it. I cannot grasp how you're missing what's being put down, unless you are so ideologically blinded that you cannot accept normal human reasoning like I've given you. Anyone who approaches me as overbearing, childish and intrusive will get the same response. Given the three words I've just used, you have absolutely no possible route to pretend this is trivial. These are negative traits whereever they are found. You seem to be obsessed with Dylan's trans-ness. I am not.

What victims? Let's see the cite for someone pretending to be trans to SA women in a public toilet. I'll wait here. — Mijin

I cannot understand what you think is going on here. The issue isn't anyone pretending to be trans. Males who are openly abusive (such as that would require) aren't botherd to pretend. The issue is trans women (whether 'legitimate' or not) abusing females. I don't care if you're pretending or not, if you're male, get out.

But here are a couple of examples anyway

One of these isn't a public bathroom, tbf. I personally know of two close friends (one is the mother of my child) who have had female-appearing males assault them in public.

We then have the multitude of problematic cases of males in female prisons, and the overwhelming concentration among those trans women who are prison, of sex crimes. IN the UK a trans women is fully four times more likely to be in prison for a sex crime than a non-trans male. We can calibrate that for non-violent crimes like exposure and sex work. Lets call it 50%. Which is utterly insane, but lets go with it. Still fully two times more likely.

I don't know why you're so hell-bent on reading genuine safety concerns as some kind of bigotry. I have no problem with people identifying a certain way, within reason, and I have no problem with people living their life as they see fit. That does not mean they are allowed to violate the norms, protocols and safety positions of wider society. You can just stop taking digs and being a dick while still vehemently disagreeing with me.

I think your understanding here is a bit confused. There's gender and there's sex, and transpeople are quite aware that changing their gender does not change their sex. They don't believe that going from Robert to Roberta instantly gives them a uterus. — Mijin

You may need to re-read, clearly, what I've said, as that distinction is quite clearly made. Gender means nothing if it is literally a random spectrum with no actual points of interest on it. However, I think one of the biggest misconceptions/misunderstandings is that the pro-trans (i hate this term, I just mean the non-critical ) crowd tends to claim that gender varies independently of sex. It doesn't, really. This is why we see the same levels of aggression and violence in trans women as other males. Trans men? Not so much. Because females tend to not be as aggressive or violent as males. Unless overtly masculine, like lesbians who tend to experience more DV than heterosexual or gay male couples.

Sex is real, and it matters. Not sure how that became controversial... Discussions about dignity and what not come after safety. I actually couldn't give a fuck about misgendering a rapist. We probably should do that, consistently, to ensure their rehabilitation is personalized (quipping here, but point should be illustrated well).

If yes, why are you discarding them as unreal? — MoK

Because I am intelligent, and it is occurring inside my head. There is nothing to be explained. We understand how this occurs. We create entities constantly. Taking drugs just makes it easier. I cannot understand the question, in some sense, because it seems to reverse the general course of assessment.

How do you define mind? — MoK

Mental faculties, collectively.

Interesting, thanks for the clarification. That seems fundamentally way less off the mark :P

I suppose my point was more than, as a third party, we wouldn't say that. We still see the person we know, even if they don't behave the way we know (inconclusive and just banter, really).

Yes, very meaningful distinction (no sarcasm). Thanks for that.

Oh, i'm definitely with you. It was just a comment on the version put forward in the OP (i.e the world in which a mind exists - which is not hte external world).

Oh, word? Good shit.

Obviously not.

I wouldn’t know. I would guess “scholarly consensus” for Kantian discourse is an oxymoron. — Mww

I disagree, but i get the joke ;)

its also the general scholarly consensus, best I can tell.