Sociopath Community

It does matter that some women do have to go through these things, in the cause of extreme inclusivity.

And in this discussion, it's naive to think that a man who transitions and smashes women at college sports—that these women poured their lives into—is just that thing in itself.

Stuff like that is obviously representative of a direction the entire culture is being steered toward, which is bringing along with it all sorts of concepts like misgendering, microaggression, toxic masculinity, and so-on.

It's not true that people are just overreacting to extreme cases and outliers, when these are obviously the most clear breaking points of a massive cultural shift that is happening right in front of us.

What is happening is readily apparent in everyday life, from how actors are cast now, to what kind of language will get you kicked from school or fired.

Now THIS I would say is it's own can of worms, but from the other side of it. 

There is good media that otherwise reflects leftist views, but then there's ones that ram it down your throat like an afterschool special. Even those who this media is supposed to be catering to can find it distasteful as a matter of quality, rather than the subject itself. 

No one wants to see the group they're a part of presented in a cringey light, and a lot of the media meant to cater to the left without understanding it demonstrates the same issues we're seeing with Disney: Their black people feel white-scripted, their trans and gay expressions feel straight-scripted, and by the end of it you end up with preachy tokenism rather than an organic display of their characteristics. 

It's like how someone who doesn't do drugs could still find the D.A.R.E. program cringe. 


Edit: As for the getting people fired angle, it's worth looking at each case individually, otherwise you end up lumping the ones who simply made a mistake with those who defiantly refuse to tow the line. It's already been this way, but what changed was what subjects have been added to the taboo list. 

If someone is outright preaching intolerance towards children, that's potentially concerning. 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Take me for example, do you see me dominating at sports, going to women's jails (lol they'd eat me for breakfast), or making people uncomfortable in bathrooms? Should an entire movement be reduced to the fears of those who think the worst among them must be their entire team, and even further, are the situations typically as exaggerated as the politics that follow a few anecdotes? Why even defend criminals as if they are the same as everyone else, and is sports really on par with everyday life? 

You can literally take any movement and make them look bad if you only take their extreme most anecdotal stories, just like white people did over Malcolm X. 

These aren't just fears. They are events that happen in reality.

Should such events be broadened into the presumed expectation, or simply serve as a warning? 

The reason they make headlines is because they are the points at which the sirens start going off for normies. That doesn't mean everything is great up until the alarms sound, either. For many, the extreme events are cases where they can finally point to something and say that there's been enough of this. And importantly, they can do so without worrying about being ostracized over it in this extremely PC culture.

So the next time I read about a straight male adult diddling a female child at the park somewhere in some city I don't live in, I should have sirens going off about straight people? Or should those sirens be about men? 

This would be like me presuming men shouldn't build aircraft parts because of Boeing being 75% male employment, or that men can't be trusted to cook food for me over how the majority of the food poisoning I've experienced from restaurants was done from a male chef. 

All it simply does is open the discussion. It makes sense to discuss what civilized discourse would be over the perpetrators, but it does not make sense to generalize their behavior over demographics they just happen to find themselves a part of. 

You're saying that sometimes negatives happen, but these are outliers and extreme cases, and overall trans advocacy has been good. I reject that premise, but not on the foundation of those cases. The focus of what I've discussed has been of the boundless liberal humanist push for inclusivity.

I've only ever seen the right call it boundless, and I've seen it across multiple rights topics spanning before I was even born. 

These cases are points of contrast where people en masse suddenly realize what kind of liberal society they want vs which kind they don't. My problems with the trans movement run a bit deeper than headline material. But that's tangential to what the current state of affairs is.

So far it just looks like the classic "deviancy will ruin our society" argument from your themes, appealing to tradition and order towards life itself as if progress were chaos. 

What about the bigger picture: A total transition from one state of things to another, and not everyone's on board? These sorts of changes are of a different magnitude than gays getting the right to marry. Forget what the "anti-woke media" is saying, liberals themselves are infighting over all of this!

People were the same over race, religion, and gender.

What do you mean by that?

Lets take race, how do you figure white people felt about black people being treated as their peers, being allowed to drink from their white fountains and work at their white jobs? Do you think everyone was on board for that, and does their not being on board mean we shouldn't have changed? 

Where we are now is over transitioning from that point in time from a state of slavery into a state of opportunity, and that transition did not go smoothly, we still feel the echoes of it today. You can draw near-parallels similarly in the progress made with other demographics, such as how women's rights having been fought for have changed the social schematic we now live in. 

We have plenty of people now who openly think women shouldn't be working jobs, should we just step that progress back to make them happy, just because not everyone was on board with it? 

You talk about how not everyone is on board, but is everyone on board with the current regime?

This is probably the most politically divisive period while we've been alive, no?

I'd say a lot of the political divide right now is sensationalist in nature. 

There's also worth factoring in how The Internet has changed how peer groups function, and that much otherwise is milquetoast when compared to before we were born. 

Inconvenience for people like you is way worse for those who have more problems in their lives, and I don't see why those in advantaged positions should continue to keep things that way. 

What do you mean by "advantaged positions"?

Being born with a different skin color or sex affects what chances you have, even if they are of equal potential physically and mentally, just like how where you're born does. 

Sex at least has the room to be in the same environment as those succeeding, making for more of a philosophical shift being required to fix the issue, but race can play a part in the income lottery of where into it you happen to be born, and in turn what opportunities you find yourself with. 

Thanks to progressive aims these numbers have been starting to average when compared to past decades, but stats also give the impression that there's still more work to be done when it comes to balancing out opportunities between comingling demographics. 

Okay this was four posts, again I understand if you skip anything or meld some portions together or whatever. 

 I was originally going to disagree with the Korean dude fat shaming his girlfriend, but then I realized that what he's doing is not all that different from shaming someone for doing drugs. I think there's a distinction to be made between shaming someone over a choice that is negatively impacting their lives, like drug use, and something that they can't change, like race or gender.

Is the point so far that supporting the left wing agenda for gay marriage etc is a slippery slope to all sorts of moral deteoriation? And that on the other hand support for shaming gay individuals is a similar slippery slope to discriminating based on race, gender, and so on? And to counter the right argument, the problem is that the right fails to subdivide different problems into more specific areas and see why for example support for pedophilia cannot be argued for similarly to supporting gay rights? And then on the other hand, to counter the left argument, the problem is that the left also fails go subdivide different problems into more specific areas to see why, for example, the arguments for race discrimination cannot be argued for similarly to supporting fat shamimg?

I can sort of see how, if we were to promote body acceptance that we should then be forced to apply a consistent metric across the board to many other problems. I could see how that could be a slippery slope downhill from there. But I'm not sure if that is your point, Trypt? If so, I would say there is a distinction to be made between gay rights and fat shaming on the basis of one being a matter of choice and the other one not.

Or are you saying that it's not just the fact that we need to apply a consistent standard across all areas that would lead to problems, but rather that fact that supporting one individual problem would inevitably lead to support for the overarching movement for inclusivity? And that to see this we need not look further than how the US social stratosphere has evolved in the past 20 years?

I hate that Bill Maher show. Why are they all clapping and laughing? Fucking sheep.

We could talk particulars about LGBT or privilege, but admittedly I am stuck on the disagreement with the basic premise that humanist liberalism has been on a boundless expansion of inclusivity. You're saying right wing media, or anti-woke media is programming people to feel this way about things over isolated incidents, but I posted a video of Bill Maher talking against endless inclusion in 2 different statements. Just this month Fetterman says "I'm not woke" in response to a squatter problem. Clearly this is verbiage meant to signal that while he's a liberal Democrat, he's not on board with the more expansionist and inclusive brand out there.

Turncoat said:

So is it limitless acceptance as you said at the beginning of this section, or is it acceptance up to a point? You've claimed in this span of text that it's seemingly both. Unlike what you've said thus far, I see a lot of weight between the lines drawn, rather than lump them all under one banner to the point of car marriage and rape.

What I've been saying is that it's been an endless march of inclusion, up to the point where people have enough of it. Not even just conservatives, but liberals too. I could point to more examples of people on the left urging the need to pump the brakes on this stuff, I'm just not really sure where there's a misalignment here.

Jada said: 

Is the point so far that supporting the left wing agenda for gay marriage etc is a slippery slope to all sorts of moral deteoriation? And that on the other hand support for shaming gay individuals is a similar slippery slope to discriminating based on race, gender, and so on? And to counter the right argument, the problem is that the right fails to subdivide different problems into more specific areas and see why for example support for pedophilia cannot be argued for similarly to supporting gay rights? And then on the other hand, to counter the left argument, the problem is that the left also fails go subdivide different problems into more specific areas to see why, for example, the arguments for race discrimination cannot be argued for similarly to supporting fat shamimg?

I can sort of see how, if we were to promote body acceptance that we should then be forced to apply a consistent metric across the board to many other problems. I could see how that could be a slippery slope downhill from there. But I'm not sure if that is your point, Trypt? If so, I would say there is a distinction to be made between gay rights and fat shaming on the basis of one being a matter of choice and the other one not.

Or are you saying that it's not just the fact that we need to apply a consistent standard across all areas that would lead to problems, but rather that fact that supporting one individual problem would inevitably lead to support for the overarching movement for inclusivity? And that to see this we need not look further than how the US social stratosphere has evolved in the past 20 years?

Well, I was originally saying in passing that we have been pushing for inclusion non-stop, and that I don't think that a culture that shames fatness is a bad thing. Without judging it one way or another, inclusion has been happening endlessly on all fronts (even for pedos as I pointed out). It's not fat acceptance in isolation. I hate to use this term, but it's what people are referring to when they talk about "wokeism". We've been re-assessing gender roles, what it means to be male or female, sex work, homosexuality, interpersonal relations (think microaggressions/cyberbullying), and really doubling down on multicultural programming through media. I have my own feelings about these things, but this is without judgment of the merits of any of those causes. People can be for the LGBT stuff but against the MAP stuff. I'm merely pointing out the phenomenon.

There are a lot of people who are not happy with some aspects of this, and we mostly see that during big scandals or incidents, like Dylan Mulvaney being put on a beer can leading to a boycott of Bud Light. Turncoat seems to be of the opinion that people are getting programmed by anti-woke media to be afraid of events like those as if there's going to be state-enforced homosexuality or something. But I think these incidents are where people feel safe enough to collectively rebel against aspects of this push for inclusivity without fear of serious social reprisal or losing their jobs. I think how a lot of people have begun to use "liberal" as an insult reflects the exhaustion that a lot of people feel with the push for inclusion.

So what you see as a problem is not any particular left wing stance in isolation but rather the broader push for inclusivity for the sake of inclusivity? Whereas TC would say that such a push for inclusivity doesn't exist except as a tiny minority movement and rather the left is subdivided on individual problems, and apply a more refined criterion than "all inclusivity will be allowed through"?

And TC would say that the right wing push for traditionalist attitudes for the sake of traditional attitudes will lead to racism and homophobia? Whereas presumably you would say that this push doesn't exist except as a tiny minority movement, and that rather the right is subdivided on these issues and apply a more refined criterion than "all traditionalist attitudes will be allowed through"?

The left as a whole was accelerating social change in the last 8 years. Around the last 2-3 years, there's been urge for caution on social reform within the left, and some Democrats have even been speaking out against wokeism. Democrats are having to choose how much they want to associate with elements that want gender-affirming care, to defund the police, etc. There's a fog of war over the social stuff right now between Ukraine, Israel, and abortion geting center stage with the election coming up.

The push for inclusivity is something that was driven by the left (and is now experiencing temperance there), and has been given credibility by the right. I say it's been given credibility because as the saying goes: On social issues, a conservative is a liberal on a 10 year delay. That is to say that conservatives have been accepting these social reforms—Most likely out of a fear of alienating voters by taking hard stances on things like gay marriage, and we know they are afraid stand against abortion for pragmatic reasons. The American conservative movement is in for some serious change in the next decade, but as it stands now, they basically bulwark changes made by liberals.

Jada said:

TC would say that such a push for inclusivity doesn't exist except as a tiny minority movement and rather the left is subdivided on individual problems, and apply a more refined criterion than "all inclusivity will be allowed through"?