PVW said:

I'll also note that Walsh's activities and speech, taken as a whole, are clearly and unarguably anti-trans. I don't really care whether a specific tweet or comment was "full bore" anti-trans or only "half-bore" or "one quarter bore" anti-trans. This idea that every utterance by a person is birthed fresh into the world, with no connection to previous utterances by the same speaker, is ridiculous. That's not the way speech and human society work.

I was willing to withdraw the "full bore" portion of the comment since it seemed to be such a sticking point. 

for the eristic among us in particular.

PVW said:

I'll also note that Walsh's activities and speech, taken as a whole, are clearly and unarguably anti-trans. I don't really care whether a specific tweet or comment was "full bore" anti-trans or only "half-bore" or "one quarter bore" anti-trans. This idea that every utterance by a person is birthed fresh into the world, with no connection to previous utterances by the same speaker, is ridiculous. That's not the way speech and human society work.

Essentially, you, PVW, hate/despise the movie, What is a Woman, because you hate/despise Matt Walsh (latest argument).   Further, problematic movie quotes from your perspective have been requested. Your newest argument is based on who produced/directed the idea of the movie (I assume that this is MW).  As opposed to the "bad idea(s) itself/themselves.  Even “bad people" (which is how you apparently categorize MW) can have a good idea.

PS IMHO, in order to arrive at good policy, we need a complete and thorough debate.

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

I'll also note that Walsh's activities and speech, taken as a whole, are clearly and unarguably anti-trans. I don't really care whether a specific tweet or comment was "full bore" anti-trans or only "half-bore" or "one quarter bore" anti-trans. This idea that every utterance by a person is birthed fresh into the world, with no connection to previous utterances by the same speaker, is ridiculous. That's not the way speech and human society work.

Essentially, you, PVW, hate/despise the movie, What is a Woman, because you hate/despise Matt Walsh (latest argument).   Further, problematic movie quotes from your perspective have been requested. Your newest argument is based on who produced/directed the idea of the movie (I assume that this is MW).  As opposed to the "bad idea(s) itself/themselves.  Even “bad people" (which is how you apparently categorize MW) can have a good idea.

PS IMHO, in order to arrive at good policy, we need a complete and thorough debate.

Of which, you are incompetent!

Dennis_Seelbach said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

I'll also note that Walsh's activities and speech, taken as a whole, are clearly and unarguably anti-trans. I don't really care whether a specific tweet or comment was "full bore" anti-trans or only "half-bore" or "one quarter bore" anti-trans. This idea that every utterance by a person is birthed fresh into the world, with no connection to previous utterances by the same speaker, is ridiculous. That's not the way speech and human society work.

Essentially, you, PVW, hate/despise the movie, What is a Woman, because you hate/despise Matt Walsh (latest argument).   Further, problematic movie quotes from your perspective have been requested. Your newest argument is based on who produced/directed the idea of the movie (I assume that this is MW).  As opposed to the "bad idea(s) itself/themselves.  Even “bad people" (which is how you apparently categorize MW) can have a good idea.

PS IMHO, in order to arrive at good policy, we need a complete and thorough debate.

Of which, you are incompetent!

I would say most of us are, along with most of Congress. Walsh certainly isn't. When he didn't get an answer he liked, he would ask a follow-up more absurd question. At one point, which I just saw in a Youtube 4 minute clip, he was comparing humans to chickens and couldn't deal with the response of "do chickens cry? do they commit suicide? There is a constellation of issues here". It was the village idiot interviewing an expert, but others watching merely chalk it up to: ok, good, we're hearing two sides to this issue. No, he has no real side apart from being a disinformation polemicist. Shall we start interviewing flat-Earthers to get "both sides"? No serious person would say yes unless there was clickbait money in it for them. The Internet will evolve again and I'm in a way hopeful that A.I. can patrol the lunatic fringe.  

Dennis_Seelbach said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

I'll also note that Walsh's activities and speech, taken as a whole, are clearly and unarguably anti-trans. I don't really care whether a specific tweet or comment was "full bore" anti-trans or only "half-bore" or "one quarter bore" anti-trans. This idea that every utterance by a person is birthed fresh into the world, with no connection to previous utterances by the same speaker, is ridiculous. That's not the way speech and human society work.

Essentially, you, PVW, hate/despise the movie, What is a Woman, because you hate/despise Matt Walsh (latest argument).   Further, problematic movie quotes from your perspective have been requested. Your newest argument is based on who produced/directed the idea of the movie (I assume that this is MW).  As opposed to the "bad idea(s) itself/themselves.  Even “bad people" (which is how you apparently categorize MW) can have a good idea.

PS IMHO, in order to arrive at good policy, we need a complete and thorough debate.

Of which, you are incompetent!

Are you, Dennis_Seelbach, competent to judge the competency of others on MOL regarding trans policy affecting minors?

If so, why?

dave said:

I would say most of us are, along with most of Congress. Walsh certainly isn't. When he didn't get an answer he liked, he would ask a follow-up more absurd question. At one point, which I just saw in a Youtube 4 minute clip, he was comparing humans to chickens and couldn't deal with the response of "do chickens cry? do they commit suicide? There is a constellation of issues here". It was the village idiot interviewing an expert, but others watching merely chalk it up to: ok, good, we're hearing two sides to this issue. No, he has no real side apart from being a disinformation polemicist. Shall we start interviewing flat-Earthers to get "both sides"? No serious person would say yes unless there was clickbait money in it for them. The Internet will evolve again and I'm in a way hopeful that A.I. can patrol the lunatic fringe.  

Dave, a researcher/author I worked closely with a couple of decades ago actually maintained that stressed chickens in a group closely modelled similar sized groups of humans who lived and worked closely together. Especially in their mental health and in stress behaviours.  
She used this model to help trainee teachers understand classroom tensions in junior high classes and high school classes; and to help the school students themselves understand how their behaviours affect others. 
Her studies were also used in some college level Business and Leadership courses. 

RealityForAll said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

I'll also note that Walsh's activities and speech, taken as a whole, are clearly and unarguably anti-trans. I don't really care whether a specific tweet or comment was "full bore" anti-trans or only "half-bore" or "one quarter bore" anti-trans. This idea that every utterance by a person is birthed fresh into the world, with no connection to previous utterances by the same speaker, is ridiculous. That's not the way speech and human society work.

Essentially, you, PVW, hate/despise the movie, What is a Woman, because you hate/despise Matt Walsh (latest argument).   Further, problematic movie quotes from your perspective have been requested. Your newest argument is based on who produced/directed the idea of the movie (I assume that this is MW).  As opposed to the "bad idea(s) itself/themselves.  Even “bad people" (which is how you apparently categorize MW) can have a good idea.

PS IMHO, in order to arrive at good policy, we need a complete and thorough debate.

Of which, you are incompetent!

Are you, Dennis_Seelbach, competent to judge the competency of others on MOL regarding trans policy affecting minors?

If so, why?

My comment merely referenced your lack of debating skills.

RealityForAll said:

Essentially, you, PVW, hate/despise the movie, What is a Woman, because you hate/despise Matt Walsh (latest argument).   Further, problematic movie quotes from your perspective have been requested. Your newest argument is based on who produced/directed the idea of the movie (I assume that this is MW).  As opposed to the "bad idea(s) itself/themselves.  Even “bad people" (which is how you apparently categorize MW) can have a good idea.

PS IMHO, in order to arrive at good policy, we need a complete and thorough debate.

The thing of it is that Musk didn't say in that thread "People should listen to everything Matt Walsh has to say".  Rather he suggested people watch the movie.  I think its a stretch to say a comment about a movie that does not target trans people is "full bore anti-trans".  

I guess its bad form to quibble with facts during character assassinations. 

terp said:

The thing of it is that Musk didn't say in that thread "People should listen to everything Matt Walsh has to say".  Rather he suggested people watch the movie.  I think its a stretch to say a comment about an a movie that does not target trans people is "full bore anti-trans".  

If I urged you to watch a PSA by Dr. Fauci, would you think to yourself "I have no idea what PVW's position on vaccines is"?

PVW said:

terp said:

The thing of it is that Musk didn't say in that thread "People should listen to everything Matt Walsh has to say".  Rather he suggested people watch the movie.  I think its a stretch to say a comment about an a movie that does not target trans people is "full bore anti-trans".  

If I urged you to watch a PSA by Dr. Fauci, would you think to yourself "I have no idea what PVW's position on vaccines is"?

I'd struggle to think if you thought the vaccines would stop the pandemic for everyone who got it administered, or if you thought the vaccine merely stopped transmission, or if you thought it would prevent hospitalization, or death, or if you thought I needed to get one every 3-6 months.  

Perhaps I'd think you were willing to sell out the American public for the pharmaceutical industry. Frankly, it would be too much for my feeble mind to think through.

terp said:

I'd struggle to think

Yeah you would.

Is being against gender affirming health care anti trans? I say yes. 

Another question -- would Matt Walsh himself say he's anti-trans? From his full body of "work" I can't be sure he'd say no. 

ridski said:

terp said:

I'd struggle to think

Yeah you would.

Assuming your dad could beat up my dad as well.  

ml1 said:

Is being against gender affirming health care anti trans? I say yes. 

Another question -- would Matt Walsh himself say he's anti-trans? From his full body of "work" I can't be sure he'd say no. 

This speculation is starting to get pretty far from that tweet. 

terp said:

Assuming your dad could beat up my dad as well.  

Not a chance. My dad's been dead since 1981.

terp said:

ml1 said:

Is being against gender affirming health care anti trans? I say yes. 

Another question -- would Matt Walsh himself say he's anti-trans? From his full body of "work" I can't be sure he'd say no. 

This speculation is starting to get pretty far from that tweet. 

I'm going to need a definition of "pretty far."

RealityForAll said:

Even “bad people" (which is how you apparently categorize MW) can have a good idea.

Bad thinkers can’t, unless they luck into one. So whether you’re a policymaker in a complete and thorough debate or an MOL reader making judgments for yourself, you listen in case lightning strikes, but you don’t give them any more time than they deserve, and you don’t credit them if it does.

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

Even “bad people" (which is how you apparently categorize MW) can have a good idea.

PS IMHO, in order to arrive at good policy, we need a complete and thorough debate.

Bad thinkers can’t, unless they luck into one. So whether you’re a policymaker in a complete and thorough debate or just an MOL reader making judgments for yourself, you listen in case lightning strikes, but you don’t give them any more time than they deserve, and you don’t credit them if it does.

Is George W. Bush a "bad thinker"?

Linda goes full-bore on Twitter as the global town square:

terp said:

The thing of it is that Musk didn't say in that thread "People should listen to everything Matt Walsh has to say".  Rather he suggested people watch the movie.  I think its a stretch to say a comment about a movie that does not target trans people is "full bore anti-trans".  

I guess its bad form to quibble with facts during character assassinations. 

The discussion here of Walsh's movie is essentially the same as the earlier discussion on this thread about whether the NY Times was publishing "anti-trans" articles because they reported differences between gender affirming care for children in the US and Europe, as well as differences in opinions among practitioners in the field of gender affirming care in the US.

In both discussions, questions and criticisms of policy makers, medical practitioners and academic theorists are mislabeled "anti-trans" which falsely gives the impression that trans people -- rather than the experts, policy makers and practitioners -- are being questioned and criticized.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/twitter-is-a-private-company/politics-plus?page=next&limit=2130#discussion-replies-3612891

And to be clear, this is a comment about Walsh's movie "What is a Woman?" and not about anything else he's written or said.

terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:

The thing of it is that Musk didn't say in that thread "People should listen to everything Matt Walsh has to say".  Rather he suggested people watch the movie.  I think its a stretch to say a comment about an a movie that does not target trans people is "full bore anti-trans".  

If I urged you to watch a PSA by Dr. Fauci, would you think to yourself "I have no idea what PVW's position on vaccines is"?

I'd struggle to think if you thought the vaccines would stop the pandemic for everyone who got it administered, or if you thought the vaccine merely stopped transmission, or if you thought it would prevent hospitalization, or death, or if you thought I needed to get one every 3-6 months.  

All that, because I suggested people watch a PSA? You see my point, I trust.

Note that I didn't even say what the PSA was about -- nor, I'd argue, would its contents change your response here. The constellation of "PVW", "Fauci," and your own beliefs and opinions was sufficient.

We can play another trick with this -- what if Elon Musk linked to a PSA by Fauci -- I'll bet that changes the contents of that hypothetical video for you. And I'll bet that, where you saw "PVW agreeing with Fauci" in the first hypothetical, you likely imagine something more akin to "Musk exposes Fauci" in the latter.

Context matters.

paulsurovell said:

Linda goes full-bore on Twitter as the global town square:

What's the over/under on her lasting 6 months? One year?

ml1 said:

Is being against gender affirming health care anti trans? I say yes. 

Another question -- would Matt Walsh himself say he's anti-trans? From his full body of "work" I can't be sure he'd say no. 

Even from what he says in the movie, we can be sure that he wouldn't say "No".

paulsurovell said:

Linda goes full-bore on Twitter as the global town square:

Everything she mentions in that Tweet - the Twitter is now LESS like that, than it was before Musk starting monkeying around with it.

paulsurovell said:

The discussion here of Walsh's movie is essentially the same as the earlier discussion on this thread about whether the NY Times was publishing "anti-trans" articles because they reported differences between gender affirming care for children in the US and Europe, as well as differences in opinions among practitioners in the field of gender affirming care in the US.

In both discussions, questions and criticisms of policy makers, medical practitioners and academic theorists are mislabeled "anti-trans" which falsely gives the impression that trans people -- rather than the experts, policy makers and practitioners -- are being questioned and criticized.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/twitter-is-a-private-company/politics-plus?page=next&limit=2130#discussion-replies-3612891

And to be clear, this is a comment about Walsh's movie "What is a Woman?" and not about anything else he's written or said.

The link goes to one of Paul's posts, in a discussion where it was shown that he wasnt giving an accurate description of what was said in the sources he was discussing.

Similarly, his description of the "What Is A Woman?" movie isn't accurate.  Maybe he let himself be fooled by Walsh's deception (all of which is detailed in articles that have been pointed out to Paul on this thread).

Related to my prior post - repeating a reply from yesterday -

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

dave said:

Walsh and other speakers at the rally used incendiary language directing anger at medical professionals

....

Daily Wire's Matt Walsh calls LGBTQ teachers “groomers,” adding, “There is no heterosexual person demanding this sort of thing on the other side”

....

FIND MORE ABOUT PAUL'S PROUD BOY AT:

https://www.mediamatters.org/matt-walsh

Was this stuff in the film that we're talking about?

" 'You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys. ... You are poison. You are predators. I can see why you try to stop us from speaking, you know that your ideas are indefensible, you silence the opposing side because you have no argument. You can only hide under your beds like pathetic little gutless cowards, hoping that we will shut up and go away. But we won’t. I promise you that.' ...

"The quote above comes from 80 minutes into the movie, when Walsh is shown speaking at a meeting of the Loudoun County School Board, called so that residents could express their views on Policy 8040, which would allow transgender students to use their correct name and pronouns, as well as school bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-what-is-a-woman-matt-walsh-asks-a-question/

Again, Matt Walsh in the movie, describing trans people and their allies: "your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys."

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Fair enough, agreed on that point. But at the same time, there is evidence that the type of fast-tracking the Walsh thread revealed can increase the chance of regret. 

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/

Complicated issue to be sure, but slapping a "full bore anti-trans" label on that thread seems pretty reflexive to me. Cancel first, ask questions later. 

for someone to be "canceled" they need to be denied a platform. Criticism is not "cancellation." I think you know that. Or you should.

That's the literal definition, which is not applicable to this discussion, because nobody here has jurisdiction to deny Walsh a platform. 

then why did you use the term if it doesn't apply here? Just to be annoying?

if you're using the word "seems" that's a tell that what you've concluded is probably wrong. I've done my due diligence to come to my conclusion. Which is more than you're doing.

The "due diligence" you're congratulating yourself about has "concluded" the following to support your opinion that the Walsh Twitter thread in question is (full bore) anti-trans:

-The nuts removed in 22 mins seems unrealistic;   

-the content is "misleading to the point of being lies", (nothing about what specifically is misleading and how it's misleading) 

-the content is "full of unnecessarily inflammatory terminology" (also no specifics)  

-"The way the tweets are written is anti-trans on its face" 

All just observation and opinion. Which you're certainly entitled to, but don't apply for a research fellowship just yet.

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Fair enough, agreed on that point. But at the same time, there is evidence that the type of fast-tracking the Walsh thread revealed can increase the chance of regret. 

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/

Complicated issue to be sure, but slapping a "full bore anti-trans" label on that thread seems pretty reflexive to me. Cancel first, ask questions later. 

for someone to be "canceled" they need to be denied a platform. Criticism is not "cancellation." I think you know that. Or you should.

That's the literal definition, which is not applicable to this discussion, because nobody here has jurisdiction to deny Walsh a platform. 

then why did you use the term if it doesn't apply here? Just to be annoying?

if you're using the word "seems" that's a tell that what you've concluded is probably wrong. I've done my due diligence to come to my conclusion. Which is more than you're doing.

The "due diligence" you're congratulating yourself about has "concluded" the following to support your opinion that the Walsh Twitter thread in question is (full bore) anti-trans:

-The nuts removed in 22 mins seems unrealistic;   

-the content is "misleading to the point of being lies", (nothing about what specifically is misleading and how it's misleading) 

-the content is "full of unnecessarily inflammatory terminology" (also no specifics)  

-"The way the tweets are written is anti-trans on its face" 

All just observation and opinion. Which you're certainly entitled to, but don't apply for a research fellowship just yet.

a skeptical reader should be able to figure out on their own what's misleading in those tweets. It's not rocket science. 

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

As the NHS in Scotland and Northern Ireland (possibly Wales, I'll have to look into that) have not changed their stance on puberty blockers, I can't comment on a UK ban, as it hasn't happened.

Here, you can "look into" this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/health/puberty-blockers-transgender-children-britain-nhs.html

The article has been corrected. Thank you, ridski.