I have a hard time taking this kind of enlightened-centrist both-sides gruel very seriously. Calling every strong position "extreme" is a classic sleight-of-hand maneuver by people who want to mask their own wrong-side-of-history beliefs that they know they should feel ashamed of expressing.

Yes, yes, look for truth beyond labeled groups, but pretending that the "sides" are equal is some utterly moronic "Fair and Balanced" bullshit.

> it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.

Many issues really do have a bright dividing line. I mean, for fuck's sake, there are people who are currently fighting against releasing the Epstein files, documents that clearly incriminate pedophilic rape and sex trafficking.

> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent.

I think the author here doesn't actually understand what manufactured consent is, because believing otherwise demonstrates media illiteracy. Talking about our extreme filter bubbles (community/information homogeneity) in one breath and then denying the pervasiveness of manufactured consent in the next is otherwise a perfect demonstration of Gell-Mann amnesia.

▲

GaryBluto an hour ago | parent | next [-]

"enlightened-centrist" and "both-sides(ism)" are phrases left-leaning people use to try and say "My team good, your team bad, to believe anything else is insanity/stupidity!" without coming off as a douchebag. (It doesn't work)

▲

upstairs_key 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a common misconception about what it means to be against political extremes.

It does not mean "both sides have a point".

It does not mean "both sides" are equally bad.

It does not even mean that there are necessarily two sides.

The term "centrist" is used to imply and reinforce these misconceptions, encouraging people toward extremes. When you see things in black and white, of course everything is a straight line from good to evil (with you at the far end of good), so if someone only partially agrees with you, they're in the "center" and that much closer to Hitler than you. It's hard to step outside of this fantasy. But I'll try to help you.

Imagine the following dialogue.

A: "Are you Hindu or Muslim?"

B: "Neither. I'm an atheist."

A: "Oh, so you are torn between Vishnu and Muhammad."

And yes, one of the political parties is significantly more deranged than the other right now. You don't need to be extreme to see that and it is possible to vote for the more reasonable party without drinking their kool-aid.

▲

ToucanLoucan 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

AlexandrB 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> Transpeople are the people they say they are.

Let's just poke this one a little bit. Does this standard apply to all people or just trans people? Why or why not? Do you think this[1] individual is who they say they are? Why or why not?

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/germany-extremist-trans-neo-nazi-gende...

▲

ToucanLoucan 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> Does this standard apply to all people or just trans people?

All.

> Why or why not?

Because the self as a concept only exists within the mind of the individual and it's sole source for determination is what that individual says. It's non-falsifiable so taking people at their word is simply the only option.

> Do you think this[1] individual is who they say they are?

Sure. There are shitty transpeople too.

> Why or why not?

See above.

And if you're asking how you prevent that person from being a threat to other people in the prison, well, there's a lot to unpack there.

For immediate solutions, solitary confinement. I don't like it as a policy but the neo-nazi movement is openly male-supremacist and this person, woman or not, is a threat to other women. If she wants to be sent to a women's prison it's the prison's duty to see that incarceration pass with as few incidents as possible, so the only logical path forward is isolation from other inmates.

For broader solutions: the fact that we segregate prisons along sex lines is going to always be a problem for trans offenders, but I also understand why that segregation exists and it's obvious. If we assume those same risks are valid, then any transwoman in a woman's prison is a threat, and any transmasculine person in a men's prison is threatened, and nonbinary folk are going to be all kinds of lost in that system. So, logically, we should expand the range of available prison facilities to account for this. Transwomen would go to a transwoman's prison, which would be identical to a woman's prison, apart from not having ciswomen in it, and vice-versa. And I guess you'd also need enby-jails too.

Though if you want my personal opinion, I think there's a much easier solution to this particular offender, and it's the same solution I'd prescribe for any Nazi, regardless of their gender identity.

▲

AlexandrB 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> All.

Ok, so then transracial individuals[1] should be believed as well? What about those that identify as inanimate objects[2] or animals? If we accept self-identification as an inanimate object should others be allowed to treat that person as such?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/swjdjp/tree...

	▲	ToucanLoucan 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Ok, so then transracial individuals[1] should be believed as well? I mean, "race" is a social construct too. There's nothing biologically different about a black man from a white man. It's a collection of cultural, historical and visual cues society imbues with meaning. So... in a way, it's got a lot in common with gender. > What about those that identify as inanimate objects[2] or animals? Yep. > If we accept self-identification as an inanimate object should others be allowed to treat that person as such? If someone earnestly identifies as an object, that's their prerogative. But no, others don't get to treat them like furniture or property because consent and dignity still apply to them. Identity doesn't override someone's right to safety, and it doesn't give others license to dehumanize, even in a twisted manner of affirming them. And, as someone with an occasional spirit for some BDSM play, I am familiar with treating people like objects in a way that is edifying without being harmful to them. Edit: It feels like you're trying really hard to find an edge case in self identification where it could be used to cause harm, as though the actual, current mechanisms of identity as imposed by society aren't also doing that. Yes, someone could use self identification to do something shitty. That is not unique to this concept and in fact this, and a variety of others, already have plenty of holes wide enough to drive a truck through to accomplish the same goal. If your standard here is a system which is objectively verifiable, you will not meet it at any point. All of this is subjective because it all ties into the subjective experiences of individuals and the subjective analysis of systems and other individuals. There are no clear cut answers and there never will be, it's subjective turtles all the way down.