loaded. (referenced above) confuses asking loaded questions withstraight-forward asking questions. The Hegelian dialectic is the essence of Western Civilization. Without questions and questioning, the process of thesis-antirhesis-synthesis cannot operate ( which is the very basis of reason and rational thought).
Can you just acknowledge that some person(s) and/or group(s) have great difficulty answering questions about sex and gender? IMHO, often answers are not forthcoming because there is no "good answer." Rather than the question(s) being loaded.
I don't even understand your question, so I can't answer it.
I won't dwell on the age of either of those articles, but I did look into one specific instance mentioned in Chait's piece: a Trump rally that was canceled in Chicago in 2016.
From a NYT article describing the event...
Mr. Trump’s opponents, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich, condemned the disruptions, but said Mr. Trump was responsible for the tenor of his rallies. Mr. Cruz said Mr. Trump “affirmatively encourages violence.”
[...]
In the hours before the event, inside the 9,500-seat arena, Mr. Trump’s backers were energized. Some dressed in outfits to match his, and chanted “Trump! Trump! Trump!” as they waited.
But the situation grew tense as the size of the protest crowd became clear, and as some yelled anti-Trump slogans and skirmished with the supporters. Three men in T-shirts that read, “Muslims United Against Trump,” departed early on, delighting the pro-Trump crowd.
Outside, a tense standoff mounted as well. A line stretched for blocks while ticketholders — a diverse mix of older whites wearing Trump gear and younger African-American and Muslim students — waited to be allowed inside. Some said they were devoted Trump fans eager to hear him speak in person. “I believe in Trump absolutely,” said Jana Hayek, a Chicagoan and stay-at-home mother, holding the hand of her 12-year-old son, Peter. “I definitely agree with his immigration policy. It’s important to control who comes into this country.”
A large group opposing Mr. Trump merrily taunted the people entering the stadium with shouts of “Donald Trump has got to go” and signs caricaturing Mr. Trump as a fascist with a Hitler mustache. (In one only-in-Chicago insult, a protester carried a sign reading, “Trump puts ketchup on his hot dog.”) And then, suddenly, an announcement declared the event “over” and repeated it several times.
As people streamed out, supporters of Mr. Trump were angry and frustrated. Anthony Pieroni, 19, a student at the university and a Republican, said he was disappointed. “I understand why people didn’t want him to come here,” he said. “People were fighting, ripping up signs, going crazy. It was just a terrible idea.”
[...]
“They got the job done,” Vickie Deanda, 54, an accountant from Chicago, said of the demonstrators. “Someone has to object to this hatred. The people inside have a right to be there. But we have a right to be here, too.”
I just did a quick sweep on the Shut It Down thing on twitter, and it appears to be used by pretty much everybody, from WGA members on strike to this guy:
Folks, what is it going to take to get you off your sofa, out of the lazy boy chair... and into the proverbial street protesting, demonstrating, etc... against the SOCIALIST unconstitutional government in Washington that's robbing our Treasury of TRILLIONS...? #shutitdown
— Jeff H Reynolds - Outspoken Texas Conservative (@JeffHReynolds) June 5, 2023
Plus Chait's final sentence literally states that "noisy minorities — like the cranks and kooks of the far right who had been, 60 years ago, banished to the margins of Republican politics — have a way of developing over time into majorities, unless they meet forceful opposition." He admits that the cranks and kooks of the far right are now the majority and need to be met with forceful opposition, so in a single sentence he completely undercuts his -- and by extension your -- argument.
Not really. The Walsh thread was deemed "full bore anti-trans" by at least two posters. I asked why specifically the content of the thread was full bore anti-trans, but got no response, other than the guy is anti-trans.
So to me, that's shutting down the content of an objectionable figure -- one of the exact things Chait warns about.
You did receive responses. You were given supporting material. Any lack of understanding isn’t the fault of those of us who’ve responded.
Not really. The Walsh thread was deemed "full bore anti-trans" by at least two posters. I asked why specifically the content of the thread was full bore anti-trans, but got no response, other than the guy is anti-trans.
So to me, that's shutting down the content of an objectionable figure -- one of the exact things Chait warns about.
You did receive responses. You were given supporting material. Any lack of understanding isn’t the fault of those of us who’ve responded.
I’ll add that Smedley, in his comment above, appears to be arguing that speech can be shut down by other speech, which is Baer’s, not Chait’s, argument.
I won't dwell on the age of either of those articles, but I did look into one specific instance mentioned in Chait's piece: a Trump rally that was canceled in Chicago in 2016.
From a NYT article describing the event...
Mr. Trump’s opponents, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich, condemned the disruptions, but said Mr. Trump was responsible for the tenor of his rallies. Mr. Cruz said Mr. Trump “affirmatively encourages violence.”
[...]
In the hours before the event, inside the 9,500-seat arena, Mr. Trump’s backers were energized. Some dressed in outfits to match his, and chanted “Trump! Trump! Trump!” as they waited.
But the situation grew tense as the size of the protest crowd became clear, and as some yelled anti-Trump slogans and skirmished with the supporters. Three men in T-shirts that read, “Muslims United Against Trump,” departed early on, delighting the pro-Trump crowd.
Outside, a tense standoff mounted as well. A line stretched for blocks while ticketholders — a diverse mix of older whites wearing Trump gear and younger African-American and Muslim students — waited to be allowed inside. Some said they were devoted Trump fans eager to hear him speak in person. “I believe in Trump absolutely,” said Jana Hayek, a Chicagoan and stay-at-home mother, holding the hand of her 12-year-old son, Peter. “I definitely agree with his immigration policy. It’s important to control who comes into this country.”
A large group opposing Mr. Trump merrily taunted the people entering the stadium with shouts of “Donald Trump has got to go” and signs caricaturing Mr. Trump as a fascist with a Hitler mustache. (In one only-in-Chicago insult, a protester carried a sign reading, “Trump puts ketchup on his hot dog.”) And then, suddenly, an announcement declared the event “over” and repeated it several times.
As people streamed out, supporters of Mr. Trump were angry and frustrated. Anthony Pieroni, 19, a student at the university and a Republican, said he was disappointed. “I understand why people didn’t want him to come here,” he said. “People were fighting, ripping up signs, going crazy. It was just a terrible idea.”
[...]
“They got the job done,” Vickie Deanda, 54, an accountant from Chicago, said of the demonstrators. “Someone has to object to this hatred. The people inside have a right to be there. But we have a right to be here, too.”
I just did a quick sweep on the Shut It Down thing on twitter, and it appears to be used by pretty much everybody, from WGA members on strike to this guy:
Plus Chait's final sentence literally states that "noisy minorities — like the cranks and kooks of the far right who had been, 60 years ago, banished to the margins of Republican politics — have a way of developing over time into majorities, unless they meet forceful opposition." He admits that the cranks and kooks of the far right are now the majority and need to be met with forceful opposition, so in a single sentence he completely undercuts his -- and by extension your -- argument.
it does seem as though the same handful of on-campus incidents get cited as "proof" that liberals in the U.S. are all about shutting down speech they don't like. And yet, none of these people are ever really denied platforms to push their ideas.
even here, when I call out those who "just ask questions" in NO WAY have I ever suggested they can't or shouldn't be allowed to ask their questions.
I would think the free speech absolutists would support my responding to what I see as biased questioning. Or maybe they don't understand that criticizing someone isn't "canceling" them or suggesting they be silenced.
Sometimes I can't believe that I have to explain this ad nauseam on this board. I guess it's more nuanced than I thought.
Not really. The Walsh thread was deemed "full bore anti-trans" by at least two posters. I asked why specifically the content of the thread was full bore anti-trans, but got no response, other than the guy is anti-trans.
So to me, that's shutting down the content of an objectionable figure -- one of the exact things Chait warns about.
You did receive responses. You were given supporting material. Any lack of understanding isn’t the fault of those of us who’ve responded.
I’ll add that Smedley, in his comment above, appears to be arguing that speech can be shut down by other speech, which is Baer’s, not Chait’s, argument.
I understood Baer's argument to be that the speech of some groups of people can be shut down by others referring to them as lesser, or "illegal" or otherwise inferior to the majority group. I didn't read him to be saying that speech can be shut down by other speech that's criticism.
the idea that Elon Musk or Matt Walsh's free speech is in peril because other people call their writing anti-trans is pretty dubious, IMHO.
I understood Baer's argument to be that the speech of some groups of people can be shut down by others referring to them as lesser, or "illegal" or otherwise inferior to the majority group. I didn't read him to be saying that speech can be shut down by other speech that's criticism.
I didn’t, either. The underlying idea is that some speech can shut down other speech, an idea that Smedley seems to endorse when he points to unelaborated name-calling (to distinguish it, on his terms, from criticism) as an example.
Not really. The Walsh thread was deemed "full bore anti-trans" by at least two posters. I asked why specifically the content of the thread was full bore anti-trans, but got no response, other than the guy is anti-trans.
So to me, that's shutting down the content of an objectionable figure -- one of the exact things Chait warns about.
You did receive responses. You were given supporting material. Any lack of understanding isn’t the fault of those of us who’ve responded.
I asked you this straightforward question at 1:46 pm yesterday.
"What specifically about the content of the thread is full bore anti-trans to you? (I ask, holding on to the slimmest of hopes that I will get an answer)"
There was plenty of general criticism of Walsh and discussion about the movie following that, but no direct response to the question, from you or anyone else.
The opportunity is still there for you, either to direct me to the response(s) that answered the question and I was remiss in not seeing, or to respond now.
(Chance of obfuscation ahead: 50%. Chance of crickets: 50%. Chance of an actual answer: <1%)
I asked you this straightforward question at 1:46 pm yesterday.
"What specifically about the content of the thread is full bore anti-trans to you? (I ask, holding on to the slimmest of hopes that I will get an answer)"
There was plenty of general criticism of Walsh and discussion about the movie following that, but no direct response to the question, from you or anyone else.
The opportunity is still there for you, either to direct me to the response(s) that answered the question and I was remiss in not seeing, or to respond now.
(Chance of obfuscation ahead: 50%. Chance of crickets: 50%. Chance of an actual answer: <1%)
You were provided the information you requested. I gave you straight answers, along with others here.
Look, there are folks who wouldn't mind gotcha'ing me and would be happy to serve up this information and "straight answers" you speak of, on a silver platter, with a side of crow. The fact that nobody is serving this up is kinda telling that it doesn't exist.
You were provided the information you requested. I gave you straight answers, along with others here.
I'm wondering if I'm the only one who did a little more looking into whether Walsh's tweet claiming 22-minute approval for "gruesome" "life-altering" surgery was true or misleading.
spoiler alert: misleading for sure. I suppose people can debate whether or not it's a full-on lie or just misleading.
In the article referenced above the author confuses asking loaded questions with straight-forward questions. The Hegelian dialectic is the essence of Western Civilization. Without questions and questioning, the process of thesis-antirhesis-synthesis cannot operate ( which is the very basis of reason and rational thought).
In my reading, the author specifically draws a distinction between loaded (“bad”) questions and Hegelian (“good”) questions. To wit:
“Good questions lead us down the right path, towards the truth or some other goal we have. Bad questions lead us astray, and malicious actors can weaponize them to shape a conversation in a way that only benefits them.”
Look, there are folks who wouldn't mind gotcha'ing me and would be happy to serve up this information and "straight answers" you speak of, on a silver platter, with a side of crow. The fact that nobody is serving this up is kinda telling that it doesn't exist.
It was served up. It’s a message board, scroll back a day and read the posts.
Look, there are folks who wouldn't mind gotcha'ing me and would be happy to serve up this information and "straight answers" you speak of, on a silver platter, with a side of crow. The fact that nobody is serving this up is kinda telling that it doesn't exist.
It was served up. It’s a message board, scroll back a day and read the posts.
Pretty please with sugar on top, please provide us all with the time of day of the posting where "It was served up."
You know, Smedley, I think you're right when you say that "it’s clear to everyone and their brother, as well as Musk himself, that the Twitter purchase was a disaster."
When you first wrote that, I thought "well, not everyone -- Paul for instance." But I've noticed that Paul hasn't tried to argue that Musk is doing well at Twitter in a while -- he always turns the conversation to Tesla or to whether or not someone loves Musk as much as he does. So I think my caveat was incorrect, and that "everyone and their brother" probably encompasses Paul as well.
You know, Smedley, I think you're right when you say that "it’s clear to everyone and their brother, as well as Musk himself, that the Twitter purchase was a disaster."
When you first wrote that, I thought "well, not everyone -- Paul for instance." But I've noticed that Paul hasn't tried to argue that Musk is doing well at Twitter in a while -- he always turns the conversation to Tesla or to whether or not someone loves Musk as much as he does. So I think my caveat was incorrect, and that "everyone and their brother" probably encompasses Paul as well.
The flaw in your argument is that it's premised on the pecuniary definition that "doing well" is measured in dollars. In your deep dive into the mind of Elon Musk, you've either missed (I doubt it) or chosen to ignore (likely) his repeated statements that he doesn't care about losing money in the pursuit of freedom of speech. And since he has the luxury of doing that, when measured by what's important for democracy in America, Twitter has been a resounding success in moving toward Musk's goal of created a digital Town Square where all points of view are welcome.
^Paul, Re Musk/MB, for those of us not on Twitter, what’s it about? In just a few words, please; I’m in the the throes of a multi-day migraine.
Smedley, is it possible that perhaps your definition of ‘full bore anti-trans’ doesn’t match those of other readers and posters? Certainly mine isn’t matched by what I’ve read, but I can understand the points those people are making.
Look, there are folks who wouldn't mind gotcha'ing me and would be happy to serve up this information and "straight answers" you speak of, on a silver platter, with a side of crow. The fact that nobody is serving this up is kinda telling that it doesn't exist.
It was served up. It’s a message board, scroll back a day and read the posts.
Pretty please with sugar on top, please provide us all with the time of day of the posting where "It was served up."
Thanks in advance.
I copied (see below) all of @nohero's posts on this thread from his claim that "Elon Musk has been indulging in full bore anti-trans posting" to his last post which you quoted.
Maybe he can point out which of the following he was referring to when he said "You were provided the information you requested". Or if I missed anything, he can point that out.
It was served up. It’s a message board, scroll back a day and read the posts.
--
You were provided the information you requested. I gave you straight answers, along with others here.
--
You did receive responses. You were given supporting material. Any lack of understanding isn’t the fault of those of us who’ve responded.
--
Walsh couldn't "have left it at that" because he wasn't making the film in order to find out what the answers are to the question.
--
So you didn't get it.
--
$54.20 was Musk’s offer for the Twitter.
--
A post from me is in "image 1". I should feel honored that something I wrote has been misrepresented by Paul the same evening he doubled down on misrepresenting something Nicholas Kristof wrote.
--
He said he didn't want to, and he won't see them if he doesn't "click the tweet". What's so hard to understand about that?
--
If you "block" someone, the Twitter will ask you if you want to see their tweets before showing them to you.
--
Conclusion of this article about the film "What Is A Woman?" The whole thing is at the link.
"Men like Walsh, who portray themselves as defenders of Truth, Reason, and Science, do not actually to do the first things demanded by real scientific inquiry—namely to be humble rather than arrogant, to read widely, to fairly consider the opposing point of view, to put forward the strongest rather than the weakest version of the other side’s case, to question one’s own biases. They combine extreme ignorance with extreme arrogance, and while it is a cinch to demolish their talking points, it will be much harder to stop their social crusade. A horrible anti-trans backlash is brewing, resulting in cruel pieces of legislation and hell-bent on destroying the fragile progress that has been made toward LGBTQ acceptance. Slick propaganda like What Is A Woman? will cause real harm to trans people, and while I generally consider censorship counterproductive, we should not understate the toxicity of a film like this."
--
You may want to find out more before judging others' reactions to Musk's promotion of him.
--
You suggest that he learn something before forming his opinion? Radical.
--
Then we have different opinions of what may be objectionable or insulting.
--
Outstanding sentence. Start with a false premise and finish with an unsupported conclusion.
--
Just today, Elon Musk has been indulging in full bore anti-trans posting. I guess he and others are of the opinion that's not objectionable or insulting to the average person Jun 7, 2023 at 6:01pm
^Paul, Re Musk/MB, for those of us not on Twitter, what’s it about? In just a few words, please; I’m in the the throes of a multi-day migraine.
Smedley, is it possible that perhaps your definition of ‘full bore anti-trans’ doesn’t match those of other readers and posters? Certainly mine isn’t matched by what I’ve read, but I can understand the points those people are making.
Joanne, Twitter is a place where you can read the postings of people like me, @nohero, Elon Musk, Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu (just about every world leader), Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Jacobson, all of the NY Times reporters, all of the WaPo reporters, numerous branches of Reuters, the AP, the Grayzone, Aaron Mate, Matt Walsh, Joe Rogan. You can search by word, by topic or by phrase. And you can tweet, reply, re-tweet someone else's tweet. And much more. It's free, but I pay $8 a month to be able to tweet 10,000 characters with formatting, and to be able to edit my tweets for up to 30 minutes.
Try it out. You'll find people you like and people you don't like. Just like the real world.
Edited to add: And if you don't want someone to see your tweets you can "block" them -- and as noted above you can still see their tweets if you want to.
I just did a search on "Australia" and the following -- related to some of the discussion here -- came up third (out of thousands of results):
Australia: Psychiatrist stood down from Gender Clinic for challenging aspects of the “affirmation model” including rushing children on to puberty blockers, which has been banned overseas but is still standard practice in Australian clinics. https://t.co/8fb7olc9uU
The flaw in your argument is that it's premised on the pecuniary definition that "doing well" is measured in dollars. In your deep dive into the mind of Elon Musk, you've either missed (I doubt it) or chosen to ignore (likely) his repeated statements that he doesn't care about losing money in the pursuit of freedom of speech. And since he has the luxury of doing that, when measured by what's important for democracy in America, Twitter has been a resounding success in moving toward Musk's goal of created a digital Town Square where all points of view are welcome.
Interesting -- why do you suppose he brought on Linda Yaccarino? Is she aware, and on board with, Musk's plan to have Twitter fail as a business?
I copied (see below) all of @nohero's posts on this thread from his claim that "Elon Musk has been indulging in full bore anti-trans posting" to his last post which you quoted.
Maybe he can point out which of the following he was referring to when he said "You were provided the information you requested". Or if I missed anything, he can point that out.
That was a silly exercise on your part, since one of my posts in there says this:
Paul, thanks. I know what Twitter; what I was asking about was the new discussion you’d brought up.
As a non-subscriber, most of the page is obscured for me, so I can’t read much. (As a chronic migraineux who also has a memory issue, I try to limit my social media and password-linked activities. Plus it’s easier to work with non-reflecting surfaces such as paper)
Joanne, Twitter is a place where you can read the postings of people like me, @nohero, Elon Musk, Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu (just about every world leader), Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Jacobson, all of the NY Times reporters, all of the WaPo reporters, numerous branches of Reuters, the AP, the Grayzone, Aaron Mate, Matt Walsh, Joe Rogan. You can search by word, by topic or by phrase. And you can tweet, reply, re-tweet someone else's tweet. And much more. It's free, but I pay $8 a month to be able to tweet 10,000 characters with formatting, and to be able to edit my tweets for up to 30 minutes.
Try it out. You'll find people you like and people you don't like. Just like the real world.
Edited to add: And if you don't want someone to see your tweets you can "block" them -- and as noted above you can still see their tweets if you want to.
I just did a search on "Australia" and the following -- related to some of the discussion here -- came up third (out of thousands of results):
Oh, Paul, you might also be in interested in the Aussie discussions on changing our Constitution to include the Voice (to Parliament, not the talent comp).
I copied (see below) all of @nohero's posts on this thread from his claim that "Elon Musk has been indulging in full bore anti-trans posting" to his last post which you quoted.
Maybe he can point out which of the following he was referring to when he said "You were provided the information you requested". Or if I missed anything, he can point that out.
That was a silly exercise on your part, since one of my posts in there says this:
Oh, Paul, you might also be in interested in the Aussie discussions on changing our Constitution to include the Voice (to Parliament, not the talent comp).
It's free, but I pay $8 a month to be able to tweet 10,000 characters with formatting, and to be able to edit my tweets for up to 30 minutes.
Why is Musk charging you money? Seems a bit pecuniary, no?
Yes, he doesn't want to lose money, but he's willing to do so.
In general, would you say that someone who doesn't want a certain outcome, but acts in such a way as to guarantee that outcome, is acting successfully?
I don't even understand your question, so I can't answer it.