Oh look, a cute friend!

I don’t want to say “I told you so”, but I told you so.

Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20240412122244/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/cass-report-youth-gender-medicine/678031/

Interesting quotes:

At the request of the English National Health Service, the senior pediatrician Hilary Cass has completed the most thorough consideration yet of this field, and her report calmly and carefully demolishes many common activist tropes. Puberty blockers do have side effects, Cass found. The evidence base for widely used treatments is “shaky.” Their safety and effectiveness are not settled science.

…

We also don’t have strong evidence that social transitioning, such as changing names or pronouns, affects adolescents’ mental-health outcomes (either positively or negatively). We don’t have strong evidence that puberty blockers are merely a pause button, or that their benefits outweigh their downsides, or that they are lifesaving care in the sense that they prevent suicides.

…

We don’t know why the number of children turning up at gender clinics rose so dramatically during the 2010s, or why the demographics of those children changed from a majority of biological males to a majority of biological females.

…

Medicalized gender treatments for minors became wrapped up with a push for wider social acceptance for transgender people, something that was presented as the “next frontier in civil rights,” as Time magazine once described it. Any questions about such care were therefore read as stemming from transphobic hostility, full stop.

deleted by creator

That’s the correct attitude, but not the attitude you like apparently.

Yes, I’m shameless like that.

Bro, just work on yourself and you will be more fulfilled than trying to become the object of your desires.

You will never be an anime girl.

…Never seen someone just straight up admit that they were bullshitting. Props to you. >Just to be clear - you do realise that the thing that “happens every time” is people >claiming not to be married to the idea of society being led by an individual, then >going on to argue that this is the only way?

There are no problems with power structures per say, not only that, (yes) they are necessary. As long as those given power do not abuse it, there are no problems. I also never claimed to believe that society should be at the hands of one individual and their whims and desires. These two things do not contradict one another.

Secondly, the only one here bullshitting is you, and I will tell you why.

Citation needed.

So you are telling me, that as an employee, you can do whatever you want at work or even not show up at all, because you have no authorities above you? Or even better, maybe you think that when you are fulfilling your duties at work, you do so purely because you are interested in doing so. Not because you have to earn your salary, which you then must use to pay for your home and put food on the table in order to live. Come on.

nice marketing though

Happens every time.

Yes, we can say that it happens almost every time. You are arguing against a very obvious fact of life. A father is a leader to his family. A teacher has authority in the classroom. An employer has authority in the workspace. When you want to efficiently combat criminals, you need commanders (detectives), like in the police. In general, you are going to have disputes between people regarding choice A or choice B. Leadership can resolve such disputes efficiently. Generally speaking, we cannot function without leadership structures.

I am not limited to conceptions that require a leader.

How about several leaders? Because you are not going to escape leadership completely. If you are a functioning member of society, you will have a leadership role over someone, and you yourself will have leaders. It does not mean that you worship them or that you are worshiped, nor does it mean that they have to be tyrants who take other people’s rights, or that you take other people’s rights.

I’m telling you this because you seem to have a very skewed idea of what leadership is supposed to be. You seem to think that it is nothing more than imposition of one’s own will over others.

I don’t think like that. I’m just saying that if a revolution is executed by bad people, they will just move the power to another tyrant. Revolts and revolutions have their place, but that does not mean that they always work. Look at Communist China or Russia. Look at the Arab Spring. Look at Libya, Gadafi was a really bad guy, a rapist even. But what happened after people revolted? Just more corruption, crime and foreign powers taking advantage of the situation.

This is why when people with a certain political leaning in the West say that they want to eat the rich, without having any further plan or clue what that would entail, look like dangerous retards. Excuse my French. Most people are pissed that they are litarelly being robbed every day by their governments, some have even been attacked physically or imprisoned unjustly. These are all legitimate grievences I do not inted to downplay at all. However, when people destroy order, leave everyone vulnerable to internal and external threats, will that make the situation better or worse? Are you willing to take that risk? What is the probability that your country will survive and prosper after such an event? Think hard about that!

If most people suck, and they would do the same as the elites had they been in power, then focusing on the current elites makes no sense. Because the current elites will just be replaced with people like them.

Lastly, in general, people will automatically rearrange themselves into power structures, even after a theoretical reset. That’s human nature. Of course there are degrees to this, but power structures will be there nontheless. You and many others don’t seem to have a clue if a revolution will lead to less totalitarianism, or more totalitarianism, you just assume that it would lead to a better state. Sorry to say, that’s a bit naive.

There is always going to be an elite. If sociery is bad, no revolution in the world will make things better. You’re just going to replace one tyrant with another.

I think you’ve got it backwards. If we can’t acknowledge that both are bad before talking about banning them, then what justification do we have for banning them?

That could help. But then we need:

1. More instances.
2. A more uniform distribution of users. (as opposed to people flocking to just one or a couple of instances)

The dangerous part is that he can start bribing admins of large instances to federate Threads. I’m not sure how one would practically defend against something like this. The only way I can think of would be for an admin to be so ideologically opposed to Meta that they would refuse even $1m to federate. But such people are rare.

Mass media are at their core propaganda tools. Their mission is to further the agendas of whoever finances them, they are not driven by the pursuit of truth, justice or anything related such as the defense of privacy.

Removed by mod

They can just pin Reddit users against reality. That will do the trick.

Can’t we just say that both are bad?