Are you one of them bullies you were talking about?

Someone is sour that others are talking about things he doesn’t like.

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee — Streetlight

That is you, in pretty much every thread I find you.

The fragility is overwhelming. — Streetlight

The irony.

It’s amazing how a simple question can strike such reticence and confusion. They likely understand that an answer that runs afoul of certain ideologies could end in forms of ostracism or even assault. It’s the captive mind. — NOS4A2

Yes, truly so. That's ( their captive mind ) is what fascinates me so much.

No, I certainly don't support the gender-theory or any of such movements.

I love talking about this! It's hilarious.

I will never not find infinite joy in people getting mad at trivialities as excuses to be bigots.

I'd say I am amazed by how easily seemingly grown up people would bend over backwards to cater to some hypothetical bullies. — M777

They are not “hypothetical”, it is a very real social concern. There are, right now, people waiting, searching, for anyone to “speak their mind” in the wrong way so they can met out social justice. You answer someone in the street today, maybe you end up jobless tomorrow cuz some self important douche appointed themselves the arbiter of opinions. Then they will say something along the lines “ freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences” or something equally as blind and dumb.
You are right though, it is an act of cowardice.

↪unenlightened No, I certainly don't support the gender-theory or any of such movements. — M777

But you want to silence me, and you want to silence @Streetlight.

:sad:

I'm just ignoring you two, as you are trolling, instead of contributing to the discussion.

Excellent! Try not to tense up.

I made the allusion to the book The Captive Mind by Cezlaw Milosz, which described the intellectual cowardice of writers and artists in communist Poland. There are parallels worth noting.

That's your approach. I usually find power in speaking truth, so it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where I would avoid a response. ) — M777

I do believe in speaking truth to power, but I see no value in speaking truth to every guy trying to make a TikTok video. If you think yourself heroic in defending your views to every passerby, have at it.

In any event, my views on "what is a woman" are probably close enough to the current politically correct position that I'm not worried about being bullied, yet I still wouldn't answer. When did the idea that people are obligated to discuss religion and politics to every troll become the rule.

They are “hypothetical”, it is a very real social concern. There are, right now, people waiting, searching, for anyone to “speak their mind” in the wrong way so they can met out social justice. You answer someone in the street today, maybe you end up jobless tomorrow cuz some self important douche appointed themselves the arbiter of opinions. Then they will say something along the lines “ freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences” or something equally as blind and dumb.
You are right though, it is an act of cowardice. — DingoJones

Sees so, but on the other hand how did it happen that, at least in the US, the most fragile delusional lunatic deems that is ok to say and what is not, while virtually all sane people cater to their demands.

Than again it is understandable, as a normal person would not spend his time trying to get those lunatics fired, while the lunatics might try doing it to the sane person.

When did the idea that people are obligated to discuss religion and politics to every troll become the rule. — Hanover

It depends on the person, I see myself strong enough to speak freely and, most important, to entertains ANY ideas freely. For everybody, of course, it is different.

To help clear up the poor confused OP just looking for answers and definitely not looking to be offended by thought-experiments to help kill trans people: a woman is one of an infinite number of sexes, each of which is defined in variable and heterogeneous ways. Because life is complex and fun and awesome.

---

A thought that's always crossed my mind is that these sorts of conversations are always motivated by the fear of having affection to someone of the 'wrong' gender, which means the boundaries must be policed very tightly so these people don't go sticking their willy in the wrong hole by accident.

There's no more confusing way to prove that one's free speech is being suppressed than by discussing all the things one is not permitted to discuss.

Sees so, but on the other hand how did it happen that, at least in the US, the most fragile delusional lunatic deems that is ok to say and what is not, while virtually all sane people cater to their demands. — M777

I wouldnt agree that its “”fragile delusional lunatic”, at least not just on one side of this debate. Sadly most people on both sides of any given debate in the US operate in this fragile deluded state. There are two opinions for most people stateside these days, your opinion and the opinion of your sworn enemies.
There is a complex answer to how that happened, but its the way it is.

Than again it is understandable, as a normal person would not spend his time trying to get those lunatics fired, while the lunatics might try doing it to the sane person. — M777

Well one of those people is an activist whose hobby it is to go after people and the other a person trying to navigate the treacherous waters the activist has created.

"Thought police are very bad. This is why we must actually rigorously police gender and bodies in real life. I will be very Opppreseddddd if I can't do this".

I wouldnt agree that its “”fragile delusional lunatic”, at least not just on one side of this debate. Sadly most people on both sides of any given debate in the US operate in this fragile deluded state. There are two opinions for most people stateside these days, your opinion and the opinion of your sworn enemies.
There is a complex answer to how that happened, but its the way it is. — DingoJones

Actually yes, looking from the European perspective, the American's gun and abortion debate seems to be pretty much artificially constructed.

why, what word would you use? — M777

Naive maybe.

When did the idea that people are obligated to discuss religion and politics to every troll become the rule.
— Hanover

It depends on the person, I see myself strong enough to speak freely and, most important, to entertains ANY ideas freely. For everybody, of course, it is different. — M777

Clearly not, you feel like folks are trolling you, and you're trying to ignore them. And then you complain that the man in the street treats you the same way.

why, what word would you use?

I'll try to explain in a nutshell one of the ideas in the video in linked that relates to this topic:

Political issues are guided by narratives, and narratives are subjective - containing some forms of truth, and some opinions / untruths.

In a healthy society, proponents of different narratives are in constant communication with each other, so as to find out which parts of each narrative are truths and which parts are not. The result is usually that the sides find each other somewhere in the middle, shedding those parts which are most subjective and/or wrong.

In societies where for some reason or another healthy discourse is not possible (for example, because the political establishment greatly favors one side of the debate), this balancing act cannot take place.

There's nothing that can pull the favored narrative back into reality.

And that's sadly not where it ends. Lies and untruths must grow to keep themselves alive (for every time reality is witnessed to be discordant with the lie, another lie must be constructed to keep the narrative afloat), thus we see the extreme ends of the spectrum growing more and more extreme.

This is why self-censorship is so dangerous - people who genuinely disagree with the narrative are the only ones that can attempt to pull it back towards reality.

It is no surprise then, that the worst political ideologies committed their atrocities only after the opposition was silenced - there was no one left who could pull the ideologically possessed masses back into reality.


I probably did a poor job at conveying the full message of Desmet. I'd recommend watching the video I linked eariler to get a better explanation.

Well one of those people is an activist whose hobby it is to go after people and the other a person trying to navigate the treacherous waters the activist has created. — DingoJones

Well yes, guess it's easy for me to say, as I live in a relatively sane society ( Latvia, Europe )...
not even sure what Americans could do to fix their society, as having similar crazy activists on the other side, might not be a good solution. Probably the society would need to reevaluate itself and learn to ignore the activists.

You explained it very well. Lucky me to live in the sane part of Europe. :)
What do you think might happen to the west? would it be able to return to its senses or would it crumble, freeing up space for something new?
Some believe a new world power might arise from Poland & Ukraine. We'll see...

What do you think might happen to the west? — M777

Who knows?

Another thing Desmet describes is that this phenomenon of mass formation and totalitarianism (other than classical dictatorships, for example) come from inside the population itself, in other words, we're on a path towards radicalism because people have become more radical, and not only are they fully aware of the dangers, they wish for them, for example censorship, because it protects their radical views. We're in this situation because people want to be in this situation.

Desmet links this to the coldly mechanistic / scientific world view that believes in absolute answers to everything, and that everything, including human interaction, can be understood in simple x + y = z terms - something that in itself sums up the totalitarian way of looking at things. After all, if one believes to have the absolute answer to everything, it is a small step to believe one should allow themselves priviledges over others in order to bend them to this "truth".

Obviously, nothing good can come of this. However, as long as there are people willing and able to speak out this constant pull towards more extremism can be disrupted and hopefully in time some form of balance will be restored.

Another thing Desmet describes is that this phenomenon of mass formation and totalitarianism (other than classical dictatorships, for example) come from inside the population itself, in other words, we're on a path towards radicalism because people have become more radical, and not only are they fully aware of the dangers, they wish for them, for example censorship, because it protects their radical views. We're in this situation because people want to be in this situation. — Tzeentch

I might argue that such desires for totalitarianism might come out of one's weakness. A person subconsciously believes he is too fragile to take care of himself, so we wants an all-mighty state to do it for him. Which in turn points to the education system that has turned into a 'safe-space' and it very much against kids solving their own issues, instead of telling an adult.

I might argue that such desires for totalitarianism might come out of one's weakness. — M777

Well, extreme views are false almost by their definition, so this desire for the use of force to uphold radical ideas is due to the weakness of it - reality itself won't uphold the idea. In fact, reality makes it crumble. The only way such ideas stay afloat is through human ignorance, foolhardiness and brutality - qualities of which there is no shortage within mankind.

Exactly so. Recently had read how there were lots of peaceful attempts to build communist communes in the late 1800s, all of which peacefully fell apart withing a few month. So the only way Bolsheviks were able to keep their experiment running for over 70 years was with the use of force.