Why do we need to change the topic? How are you going to make any significant point about woke and how does it refute what I said about woke being contradictory for you to ask the above?? — Fire Ologist

I addressed the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict. You did not comment on that other than to openly admit to relying on equivocation of the term “woke” to make poor arguments against woke.

The purpose of your feigning ignorance of what woke is wasn't clear until now, page 30. Definitive proof of how slow and dull witted I am.

But fine, all social movements are perfectly consistent in theory and practice – only woke social justice contradicts itself.

I’ve given 10 times more analysis to chew on here than you have. WTF is this insult for? — Fire Ologist

I am just talking.

No need to think critically is one of the tenets of wokism. — Fire Ologist

I looked up the tenants of wokeism which are supposed to be as follows:

• Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
• Systemic Power Analysis
• Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
• Language Shapes Reality
• Moral Urgency and Activism
• Intersectionality
• Historical Accountability

The democrat candidate for governor in Virginia tells everyone to “let your rage fuel you”.
— praxis

Looks like a good statement for those willing to defend the will of God. Hitler and Trump built their campaigns on people's fears and anger. It is psychological warfare before action is taken. — Athena

Her Republican political opponent uses that line in their campaign, promoting fear and anger indeed.

you are using a broad brush here… …as long as you use that broad brush you aren’t landing your points with your actual target. — DingoJones

How so?

I think I’ve made quite a few specific points, and provided support. I am primarily interested in you showing me some point you think I am making and how such point is being framed too broadly.

One example would be great, but it sounds like you have a few.

And why do you think my points won’t land because of their broadness? Is it something to do with the nature of broad points, or something to do with the nature of the target? Or both in combination?

A little more detail about your broadness analysis would be appreciated. Thanks

I addressed the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict. — praxis

No you didn’t. You said this:

“I’m not ‘anti-woke’ if by that you mean caring about social justice — I just don’t think justice is served by denying reality.”

Both material feminists and trans activists claim to defend vulnerable groups — but define “vulnerability” and “justice” differently when it comes to policy-level consequences (sports, prisons, language, healthcare, etc.). — praxis

That defines the problem. That doesn’t address anything.

Wokeness eats the woke, and has no principle upon which to adjudicate between disputing wokeists.

Ask the feminist or the trans person to point to “reality” and to “denying reality” and the problem with woke I have pointed out will be on display.

feigning ignorance of what woke is — praxis

I never feigned ignorance of what woke is. Did you think me asking people to define woke is because I don’t know what woke is? Well, in case you thought that, the reason I asked, I figured we all have an idea of what woke is, and I figured it would be helpful on a thread like this to see where people are coming from and see where we overlap and where we differ. So we could talk about those things and clarify them as well…

I mean how would you understand me saying “woke sucks” if you don’t understand anything about woke, or anything about sucks for that matter.

I am just talking — praxis

Ok. Insults are a type of talking. Addressing content is another way to “talk.”

the tenants of wokeism which are supposed to be:

Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
Systemic Power Analysis
Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
Language Shapes Reality
Moral Urgency and Activism
Intersectionality
Historical Accountability — praxis

Is that what you think? Or are you just parroting something you looked up? You said these are “supposed to be” the tenets, as if you didn’t think they simply “are” the tenets.

Is this good faith? Am I being unreasonable asking you if this is good faith?

What is the overall point of your very last post? What are you trying to say to me as a response to my previous post? I don’t think I can tell the overall point of your last post from the words alone. There is something you aren’t saying to me. Something is not express that I am “supposed to” understand.

Why did you just now post this? We could have used this pages ago.

the tenants of wokeism:

Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
Systemic Power Analysis
Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
Language Shapes Reality
Moral Urgency and Activism
Intersectionality
Historical Accountability — praxis

There is some good stuff in there to incorporate into the discussion.

But why are you posting it now, so I don’t fall down the wrong rabbit hole?

Ok I’ll bite.

Language shapes reality - huge. I agree. That is a part of wokeism. It’s a part of post-modernism too. It explains a lot about how a conversation with the woke goes.

I think reality shapes language. What do you think? Not what someone else thinks or what someone else said what the tenets are supposed to be. What do you actually think? Does “language shapes reality” explain reality to you?

How do you think the feminists and the trans people would handle what language to put on the door to the bathroom? Get it? If “language shapes reality” how would the feminist and the trans person choose what language to put on the formerly “girls locker room”?

Keep insulting me too. It makes me look good. So thanks.

I think I’ve made quite a few specific points, and provided support. I am primarily interested in you showing me some point you think I am making and how such point is being framed too broadly.

One example would be great, but it sounds like you have a few. — Fire Ologist

You made a point earlier about Christians claiming to be Christians but aren’t actually Christians. Its just like that. Woke principals include equity (in principal if not in practice), anti racism, anti bigotry etc but also the things you mention. What I mean by your points not landing is you say “woke is so and so” your targets are hearing “anti racism and equity are so and so” and if your “so and so” was a critique then they think you are being critical of anti racism or equity. So its like if some says “christians are murderers” in reference to a abortion clinic bombing and a Christian hears that and dismisses it because of how crazy it is to call the peace loving turn the other cheek folk murderers. The point doesnt land.
Anyway, what I said doesnt stand as Praxis has offered a definition which totally undermines my point above because the definition includes some of the things you are criticizing. ‍♂️
So yes it is both the target and the point. The target (unspecific) of course has a pretty standard dogmatic reaction. Point arent landing.

That defines the problem. That doesn’t address anything. — Fire Ologist

Defining a problem is the first step in addressing it.

Stock’s core proposal is epistemic, about how we think and talk about sex and gender.
She argues that feminism must continue to recognize biological sex as real and politically salient and that society can respect gender identities without pretending they replace sex. Policy, law, and medicine must be built on empirical reality first, and social identity second.

“We should acknowledge both sex and gender identity, but not conflate them.”
– Kathleen Stock

Wokeness eats the woke, and has no principle upon which to adjudicate between disputing wokeists. — Fire Ologist

The core woke principle to adjudicate the dispute would be allyship: support marginalized groups’ definitions of justice. Stock doesn't deny the validity of gender identity or that trans are a vulnerable group. Trans activists may also respect this principle and act accordingly.

Keep insulting me too. It makes me look good. So thanks. — Fire Ologist

Don't be a whinny bitch. You're welcome. :lol:

That just means the taxpayers aren’t going to be forced to pay for whatever the college wants to say and promote. It has zero impact on freedom. — Fire Ologist

And you'd be saying that if it was the other way round, with conservative ideas banned and liberal ideas explicitly mandated under financial penalty?

I didn't mention the threats to the media because we were talking about colleges for that example, but in the context of also pulling licenses, it seems government is pulling every lever to restrict speech.
So what is even the point of the first amendment?

I’m sure you are right about some improper arrests. Point one out. Who was arrested for speech? — Fire Ologist

Almost all of the arrests are for "criminal trespass" and disorder, hence why Human Rights Watch described it as an assault on free speech and free assembly. But if you consider those arrests "proper" then it was 100% proper for those two conservative guys to have been considered to have been trespassing and disorderly.

We are talking about kids K-12. These are almost entirely minors. Ok? Kids. — Fire Ologist

No I was talking about the "stop WOKE act" impinging on the freedom of higher education institutions. I just quoted the press release that also happened to mention it included K-12. I don't expect it to make much of any difference at that level, since CRT wasn't taught to kids anyway. But it may have a chilling effect on teachers who may choose to just avoid topics like slavery outright.

State funded colleges and universities? Or all of them? If all of them, the laws are a problem. If state funded, be brave my anxious friend. — Fire Ologist

So again, you don't care about the government impinging on free speech as long as it's your side and your ideology.
I'll hold you to this. If a Democratic government comes in, and forces universities to push "woke" content (whatever that means), and ban conservative ideas about immigration or marriage, say, or get their funding cut, you don't get to say anything. It's all fine, and not a problem for freedom of speech, according to you.

I keep hammering on about moral principles, and free speech absolutism is one. Don't make any justifications of abuses of that principle aligned with your 'tribe' or you open yourself up to accusations of hypocrisy. The spike in firings was political, even if in some individual cases it may have been justified.

It's a conservative talking point. You may believe it sincerely, you might be right substantively, but that's the danger of binary tribalism. I assume good faith, but if I believe you are compelled to 'pick a side', that taints my impression of your integrity. — Jeremy Murray

You misunderstand me. It is principled, and I seek actions consistent with that principle. My principle is in response to the infringement of free speech (and free assembly and association) by the government, through legislation and force. That’s what I find is an important issue. Protecting against the government is what allows us the freedom to fight out the rest of the issues for ourselves, as we are here. Freedom from the government is the whole ballgame to me.

You’ve said, not in so many words, “hypocrisy” as I am “hammering on about” “justifications of abuses” and tainting my own integrity.

So please, let me back up.

Jimmy Kimmel says, for example, “Kirk was killed by the right wing.” That’s an opinion. That is an example of “speech.”
The FCC hears that, and concludes Kimmel’s opinion is false and/or dangerous.
The FCC can shut down broadcasts, and it threatens ABC/Disney.
So, between ABC/Disney and the government, there is a conflict, over an opinion.

What should we allow the government to do about it?

Nothing.

Because the government shall make no law abridging speech….

So what Brendan Carr (FCC chair) did to ABC/Disney was an attack on free speech. It was akin to government making a law and seeking to enforce a shut down of what ABC was broadcasting.

Plain and simple. That was dangerous government overreach.

So what should we do, or, how should we rebuke Brendan Carr at the FCC?
I’m satisfied there was enough public outcry and rebuke from the legislature (and lack of support from his own staff) that there has at least been a lesson learned at the FCC. Carr’s bullshit didn’t get past anyone. If anything, Carr made such a stupid mistake the FCC’s speech has been chilled. The government will always have to be watched from all angles. As it was watched by our legislators here. And Kimmel is back on the air fairly quickly.

So the First amendment controls, and Carr was in violation. I would certainly hear opinions that maybe the FCC chair should be fired, for knowingly or negligently over-reaching, or for incompetence in not knowing he was over-reaching. Because the First Amendment principles are that important to freedom.

And someone can reasonably fear that this FCC move was some unprecedented power grab to institute fascism if they were so inclined, but I just don’t. It was/is a big deal, but so far it looks to be playing out towards justice. As I said, we always have to watch the FCC and Kimmel is back on the air.

Is anything truly hypocritical so far? Make your case there is more to it and that this isn’t consistent. But even if so, why are you assuming I might behave hypocritically of I was presented with more relevant facts?

Let me back up again.

So again, Kimmel says, for example “Kirk was killed by the right wing”.
His boss hears that opinion and doesn’t agree or hates it.
So we have a conflict of opinions in the private sector now between Kimmel and his boss, ANC/Disney.

First of all, a conflict of opinions in the private sector is called….speech. It’s called a debate. It’s called this TPF thread. That is exactly what we are fighting so hard to protect the government from abusing by the First Amendment. We need to keep that in mind. Free speech lives among people who also happen to be employees, bosses, studio audiences, other companies, government officials (although government officials are prohibited making chilling opinions public policy, so they have to be careful what they say, as in Brendan Carr).

Si this conflict between Kimmel and ABC is not the same conflict as between ABC and the government. It’s not governed by an amendment that says “government shall make no laws…”
Kimmel’s restrictions and freedoms from restrictions by ABC are governed by an employment agreement.

That agreement certainly has terms of employment and termination clauses, and clauses related to rights surrounding triggering events. Events that can trigger contract clauses can relate to decency and moral turpitude, public displays and these include speech. Especially for a broadcaster.

Kimmel was never free by contract to say whatever opinion he wanted and not risk violating his contract or being fired or suspended. ABC can put terms in the contract the allow them to fire Kimmel for all sorts of things. Let’s say Kimmel goes nuts and puts out a string of nonsense and foul language, insulting everyone. Two days in a row. Just awful crap about puppy abortions - no one likes him. Whether ABC can suspend or fire Kimmel only has to do with contract, and so, is not a threat to anyone else’s freedom of speech at all. Nor is it a threat to Kimmel’s freedom of speech by the government. Besides being free to say and think whatever he wants, Kimmel just also agreed with ABC to whatever he agreed to say and not say by contract.

This is true for all of the employees who were fired when their boss saw them making public statements and associating with people who are glad Kirk won’t be “spewing hate” or whatever anymore. Everyone is free from government restraint. But not free social normativity.

So permit me to back up a third time.

I don’t want this to go on forever so I’ll sum up.

1. The first amendment is the principle held relatively absolute when it comes to opinion and political debate versus gov’t power.
2. Carr violated this principle at the ABC Kimmel broadcast.
3. Enough was done for now to check Brendan Carr and FCC over-reach.
4. The contract is the principle regulator of employees and employer rights. (Along with employment law which you would have to argue is on point here, but I don’t..)
5. Employees are free to agree by contract to limit their speech in order to be paid for services performed.

So if I wanted to make a book of how this is all consistent (doesn’t taint my integrity) I’d explain in more detail how:

6. Though the government cannot legally shut people up for their opinions, employers can legally fire employees for whatever is allowed by contract (which can be for no reason at all or because they don’t like what they say). If we infringe on this right of employers, we are limiting freedom for all people, not protecting rights. Government laws to stop employers from firing regardless of contract would be the end of free speech anywhere.

7. It can still be immoral or unethical to fire someone for speech. But this problem can be handled by more speech, as long as we remain free from gov’t restraint.

If I really wanted to make this more of document, we’d talk more about the constitution, how speech can in narrow circumstances be limited by government, and contract law, and employment law, and about moral versus political/criminal law.

And we’d talk about ABC leadership, who are chickenshit (so likely immoral).

And we’d go through some more specifics for the other people fired from jobs for being pigs about a murder. Nothing the government can do for having the opinion of a pig after a murder. But since when do we want to force employers to continue to pay people whose public displays can make the company look like assholes too?

There is a lot more to talk about.

But are you going all woke on me in your tactics? Et tu? Am I a hypocrite with no integrity who parrots talking points, or just another citizen trying to think for himself?

When I said lock a side, I meant vote for your beliefs. I didn’t mean grab your protest gear and shout down the enemy like a fascist, or go shut down speech, or shoot people, or dig in and not debate, or be unreasonable.

I am open to constructive criticism.

And you'd be saying that if it was the other way round, with conservative ideas banned and liberal ideas explicitly mandated under financial penalty? — Mijin

Yes. It’s called Hillsdale College. It’s called private school.

So again, you don't care about the government impinging on free speech as long as it's your side and your ideology. — Mijin

Wrong. This isn’t government impinging on speech. It’s government saying you can say whatever the hell you want, but that they won’t pay for it anymore. And I’m fine if the government decides not to give money to any college.

Got it yet?

Defining a problem is the first step in addressing it. — praxis

Yeah, but you said you addressed it.

And it took you 30 pages to define your thoughts on woke. (I think they are your thoughts.).

So we could be back in the same page (regarding woke), but we’re not for some reason.

a whinny bitch — praxis

See, we’re not really making headway.

your targets are hearing “anti racism and equity are so and so” — DingoJones

You may be right. But I think it is pretty hard to say affirmative action and quotas are anti-racism. That is cognitive dissonance, in the name of good racism.

Like @Mijin saying federal money is what permits woke ideology being taught in college, so withdrawing funds impinges on free speech - that whole worldview of the situation means government is making laws (budge/funding laws) based on the content of speech. Which is always bad. I don’t want government paying for any political views in any college.

Seems to me that that I’m not hitting the target because I’m using logic, and that doesn’t seem to register.

Yeah, but you said you addressed it.

And it took you 30 pages to define your thoughts on woke. (I think they are your thoughts.). — Fire Ologist

I clearly presented them as Stock’s thoughts and that she addressed the conflict. Are you high?

Looking into it further, apparently trans activists reject Stock’s compromise.

A couple of Judith Butler quotes…

“The category of woman can and does change, and we need it to be that way. Politically, securing greater freedoms for women requires that we rethink the category of ‘women’ to include those new possibilities.”

“The TERFs [trans-exclusionary radical feminists] and the so-called gender critical writers have also rejected the important work in feminist philosophy of science showing how culture and nature interact … in favour of a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism.”

So the more renown trans activists are uncompromising and reject the woke principle of allyship. Well, no one’s perfect. :brow:

BTW Jeremy Murray do you appreciate now why the 1% figure was not a number plucked from nowhere; it was an attempt to weigh up the attacks on freedom of speech, leaning towards being generous towards the MAGA side. — Mijin

Sorry man, I still don't. I included five links that are contrary to your generalization, two articles from John Turley who wrote this exhaustive review of free speech and rage politics in the US in 2024.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/199897939-the-indispensable-right

My links aren't long - why not consider them?

I know I don't know anything about you but your posts. I can't 'know' anything about your motivations, personal reading habits, etc. But it sure seems like you live in an information bubble. Prove me wrong - which conservative / heterodox / anti-woke thinker(s) do you agree with? On what issues?

I mean, this is also me attributing positive intent to you. If you don't see something, how can you act upon it? It seems your intentions are positive. If you are 'guilty' of anything, it is a crime of omission rather than commission.

It was only when i stepped outside of my own bubble and began pursuing conservative and heterodox voices alongside the liberal and progressive voices I was immersed in that I began to see the excesses of the left.

The excesses of the right were highly visible to me and they seem to be to you. I paid a terrible price for my awakening - cancelation, mental illness, despair.

As a teacher though, I felt the debt owed to young people to receive information from across the political spectrum outweighed my debt to 'my tribe'.

On issues like trans affirmation, two-tier policing and prioritizing, in some ways/cases, immigrants over citizens, affirmative action and the costs to 'white adjacent' groups like Asians (everything about that sentence is crazy), the explosion of anti-semitism, etc. - it is entirely plausible, in fact, perhaps as far as your 99% certainty, that 'woke' will have gotten some of these issues wrong, therefore 'harming' the very groups woke asserts to empower.

I continue to wrestle with morality, finding moral systems that make sense. Only one fundamental principle has emerged for me - meaningful morality needs to be resonant with the children we raise. Not prima facie, but with instruction, mentoring, modelling. Transmissible through ritual and story, through family and community.

I see young people everywhere struggling with a morally incoherent universe. What we are doing is not working for our generation, but worse, it seems to be harming the next ones.

I believe that if you are as certain of the moral urgency of your beliefs as you appear, that you have a responsibility to stress-test your thinking.

I see no evidence of you doing this. Further, I see no evidence of anyone woke doing this. To do this, in fact, seems judged a sin in the eyes of woke.

Refusing to consider alternatives seems antithetical to philosophy.

You misunderstand me. It is principled, and I seek actions consistent with that principle. My principle is in response to the infringement of free speech (and free assembly and association) by the government, through legislation and force — Fire Ologist

Sorry!

I agree with you that government, representing all citizens, needs to be held to a higher standard.

I do see a lot of repetition of the 'private companies' line, and while this IS true, it is also true that some private companies are simply currying favour.

This was my main problem with institutions all going woke a few years ago.

You’ve said, not in so many words, “hypocrisy” as I am “hammering on about” “justifications of abuses” and tainting my own integrity. — Fire Ologist

I was only commenting on my own ham-fisted responses ... I struggle to manage my emotions to my liking on this topic, and find myself being curt or harsh without meaning to ... so my bad. I do not mean to suggest hypocrisy in you. I am the one hammering on here, not you, and not out of sense of rightness or anything. More a despairing kind of hammering.

So what Brendan Carr (FCC chair) did to ABC/Disney was an attack on free speech. It was akin to government making a law and seeking to enforce a shut down of what ABC was broadcasting. — Fire Ologist

Agreed.

this conflict between Kimmel and ABC is not the same conflict as between ABC and the government. — Fire Ologist

I still agree. But here I note that this is part of a broader movement. Plenty of journalists / comedians / etc. are saying things that people disagree with now, but which are things that people were fine with even a few years ago. This is the problem to me.

It can be construed as part of the culture wars. It likely is, although it is also entirely possible that Colbert, to switch hosts, was cancelled simply because he was costing the network money.

This leads to the same problem I read about in 1992 in my psych 100 text with affirmative action. Recipients were likely to doubt themselves in the context of affirmative action.

It is too easy to assume that punishing Kimmel in the moment is opportunistic, rather than principled, even if it is principled. In some cases, the moral urgency of the issue outweighs this concern, but not for Kimmel.

If we infringe on this right of employers, we are limiting freedom for all people, not protecting rights. Government laws to stop employers from firing regardless of contract would be the end of free speech anywhere. — Fire Ologist

Again, I agree, I just argue that context matters. I think as a Canadian I just have a different perspective. If you want to participate in politics as an American, you (hypothetical you), are forced into a binary choice.

It is that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars.

But since when do we want to force employers to continue to pay people whose public displays can make the company look like assholes too? — Fire Ologist

We definitely don't. But missing in this discussion is the existence of these new public spaces - social media, amplified by the smart phone - that older norms are not equipped to handle.

Of course, objectively, these are 'public' spaces. But they were not conceived as such in the way they have become. Anyone can say one thing in the wrong way, on the wrong day, and have their life changed - even ruined - forever. This has a fear-generating effect, which in part explains the rise of woke. (Too big a topic to cover here, but this is Richard Hanania's argument for why corporations went woke - risk aversion).

I don't even know where to start with this topic. Screen-based existence if altering our lives more profoundly than any technology since, uhh, fire? Nobody was carrying printing-presses around in their pocket in Gutenberg's day.

And the moral systems that dominate - liberal era utilitarianism and deontology - are not flexible or fast enough to process our new world.

Adaptive norms that stabilized societies for generations no longer work the way they are expected to.

Sorry, I am very far off topic here.

Again, sorry for implying hypocrisy - I do not see hypocrisy in your statements. I do think it is pragmatic to consider more than just legal obligations between employer and employee. And that, ultimately, some of those fired should have been fired, and some should not have.

Now I'm exploding my own credibility in terms of 'principles' like free speech. But that's why free speech is such as useful principle - the 'letter of the law' is far too complex. The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it - no hate? what's hate? whose hate definition? Incitement?

We have those qualifications here in Canada, and I see the advantage that exists clearly with the streamlined US version. Trudeau wanted to make 'thought crime' illegal. Terrifying.

But are you going all woke on me in your tactics? Et tu? Am I a hypocrite with no integrity who parrots talking points, or just another citizen trying to think for himself? — Fire Ologist

No chance! "Thinking for oneself" IS free speech embodied.

While on the topic, can you think of other norms on which to build non-partisan consensus that rival 'freedom of speech' in terms of possible utility? I could see norms limiting corporate interests influencing government, the think-tanks, the McKinsey influence, lobbyists. Should corporations be 'citizens' in terms of free speech?

It feels like I am moving to the premise of 'issue-based politics'. Can I call this heterodox? I have renounced the political spectrum and party affiliation. I have only voted once in 5+ years, for a candidate I know from his years knocking on doors in my hood, chatting with me on issues. He recommended "Left is not Woke" to me.

I guess he is part of my tribe (despite his membership in a party I no longer believe in)? People I perceive as aspiring to be good and acting on those aspirations, at personal cost? Does choosing a 'side' not mean compromising your beliefs on specific issues? What 'sides' remains to me? Those 'condemned to be free'?

Glenn Loury is quite an inspiring person, as he earlier in his life had fumbled up, had gone to prison, yet then did make an academic career and ended up as an professor of economics. — ssu

Good point ssu. I wish his 'redemption' was more typical, more available to more people. Certainly, people who have made massive mistakes in life can bring unique insights to good-faith efforts made today!

Actually the US needs these kind of academics who engage in public discourse. — ssu

Great guests too ... Coleman Hughes, Wilfred Reilly...

Any recommendations for older episodes to watch, other thinkers to recommend operating in this mode?

Seems to me that that I’m not hitting the target because I’m using logic, and that doesn’t seem to register. — Fire Ologist

I think your opposition would say the same about you. I guess Im less interested in whose right or wrong and more interested in the two sides actually communicating. Right or wring is the discussion part. The points need to be set up to land first.

So the more renown trans activists are uncompromising and reject the woke principle of allyship. — praxis

Which reflects my point about woke eating its own.

The notion of allyship, offered to address this problem (which you now seem to recognize is still a problem), is one way to go. But if you look closely, allyship merely facilitates sidestepping the problem, and doesn’t address it. Biological essentialism cannot be integrated into woke ideology. Feminists think there is something specific and persistent about the biological female that relates to the category of woman. Trans can’t think that. So the two identity types cannot agree on what gender must involve and what gender need not involve.

But my point in raising this is that woke ideology affords no means to satisfy what feminists call unjust oppression while at the same time satisfying what trans call unjust oppression. My point is, it is the nature of woke to be unable to develop a coherent and just resolution of the conflict between internally warring identity groups. (Just like it is unable to fathom the concept of a white male employed middle class person being victim of a racist black woman.)

“Systemic Power Analysis”, “Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category” and “Language Shapes Reality” - these properties or aspects of woke breed the type of conflict that woke cannot resolve between its own identity groups.

———

So it seems to me here that, if you wanted to be open and honest, the quote just above means that, to some degree, you see what I am saying, or at least agree with it’s factual basis. You agree that there is no allyship of Trans people with anyone who doesn’t agree with what they say, (like traditional feminists don’t agree).

Maybe you don’t agree this conflict is a function of how woke slices up the world and adjudicates disputes.
Maybe you don’t agree the problem stems from woke process reliance on “Systemic Power Analysis”, “Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category” and “Language Shapes Reality”. But you seem to agree now that Trans and Feminism don’t share water fountains, despite the fact that both of these sub ideologies are both woke liberalism.

Are you high? — praxis

Right now, no. But thanks for asking!

The points need to be set up to land first. — DingoJones

I think I am being very plain and thorough in my set up. I give a lot of background and context.
In good faith, I openly admit I am a conservative thinker, so people have that factual reference point. (Like most discussions with woke people, the fact that I a conservative says it enough - it means I am only capable of inaccuracy, irrationality, and evil - so they don’t use logic.)

I lay out the facts I am interested in analyzing.
I provide my own analysis (which I can’t help and could care less if it sounds like MAGA), and call it my own opinion (so people aren’t confused about strawmen or arguendo.)

I lay out areas where non-conservative ideas are good ones (like forming the US Constitution, like recognizing all races and sexes are equal before the law…).

I guess Im less interested in whose right or wrong and more interested in the two sides actually communicating. — DingoJones

Me too. I’d love to dig deeper into this:

The Regressive Agenda
1. Fuck white people. White people are racists.
2. Fuck America. Blame America and its military for every problem on earth. (mention Iraq
3. Defend the Muslims. Create a false equivalence with Christianity and muddy the waters.
4. Fuck the cops
5. Fuck conservatives and Republicans
6. Save the blacks. Treat black people as if they are helpless infants who lack agency and can be nothing but victims.
7. Disregard linear time. Blur the past with the present so as to demonize modern people for the actions of those from the distant past.
8. Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all.
Then eject.
9. It someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.
10. It someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares.
11. Virtue signal whenever conceivably possible.
How is the world supposed to know how awesome you are unless you announce it to them repeatedly?
12. Fight against bullies. If there are none, pretend that there are. This will help you process your resentment towards all those mean kids who bullied you. Fight for the Ewoks, not the stormtroopers. — DingoJones

But as far as I can tell, my assessment of the above would only push people further away from actually hearing what I think. It would cause an emotional frenzy.

For instance, “Fuck white people. White people are racists.”. That seems to me to be a core tenet of the modern left in America.

“Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all.
Then eject.”

Love it. That type of thing is happening to me right before our eyes, written into this thread. No one wants to define woke (except now @praxis for some reason throws out someone else’s definition, but offers no analysis.). But the problem with “all” is the problem woke has with essential definitions. Woke doesn’t stand for essence, as it wants to say all things are in flux, with the exception that all conservatives are bad always.

It is inarguable to closed minds only. — praxis

It seems, perhaps you are not a serious person. This type of response tells me your mind is closed, and the surrounding thread makes it quite clear. Making claims in the face of opposing evidence is no reasonable, and not something that can be taken seriously on a forum like this.

It's only left to wonder how far Mill was right about social opinion being a restrictive, dictatorial aspect of group membership. The left has taken this to an extreme recently (the extreme left, obviously).

He was a culture war grifter and deliberatly cultivated social conflict for profit. — praxis

This is supported by nothing and could only make sense to someone who has only engaged with Charlie through a lens of left-wing, hateful rhetoric. Ironic, isn't it?

And of course you're persuaded by logical fallacies. — praxis

It seems you've decided to remove yourself from the adults table. That is fine by me.

I am not "charging you" with anything. I am pointing out that your own cite said there are more than two genotypes for this gene, and you think just asserting that there isn't is a refutation. — Mijin

So, that is, in fact, charging me with something (in this case, ignorance or perhaps manipulation). My own 'cite' did not say that. At all. And I have explained to you why, in detail: translocation is not a genotype. I even gave you room to say that this is not what you mean. You have not. I presume it is what you mean. Translocation is not a third genotype.

There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. Go and ask ChatGPT (I don't want to just post a quote because you'll charge me with altering it). Go and put this prompt in "are there three genotypes for SRY". I do not require an apology.

The only reason that we're discussing sex is because of the context of the gender discussion; your position seems to require asserting that the underlying sex is binary, and you're failing to find support for that assertion — Mijin

I've provided air-tight support for it. You moved back into talking about gender to get around it. We're not talking about gender. We are talking about sex. And in that context, you are point-blank wrong. Sex is a binary and is dimorphic in humans. We have two sexes and there are no exceptions. This is absolutely true, biologists agree, and you are not being serious with your responses here. I do not need you to agree - you are wrong. If you want to talk about gender we can, but this is in the context of whether it varies independently of sex (it does, so we're probably closer to the same page than you think there). Sex, though, is arguable binary. Let's go through it, based on your response here:

Cite please: an actual biologist, not your misreading of what chat gpt told you. — Mijin

*sigh* I quoted ChatGPT. And I presumed you make this bad-faith move if I were to use ChatGPT further - but apparently - lo and behold you've already made that move. That, as I'm sure you'll understand, makes it hard to take seriously.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken-Mcelreavey/publication/311361881_Mechanism_of_Sex_Determination_in_Humans_Insights_from_Disorders_of_Sex_Development/links/5d1c9bcd299bf1547c933773/Mechanism-of-Sex-Determination-in-Humans-Insights-from-Disorders-of-Sex-Development.pdf

This one is quite hard to grab on to because the point of the paper is not to illustrate that SRY is the determining factor. It implicitly accepts that it is, the entire way through, explaining how DSDs are sex-specific. It is also kind of a boring paper.

Given that DSDs are sex-specific, they present no exception to and in fact reinforce the sex binary in humans, conceptually speaking. Even later genetic aberration cannot change one's sex - as will be apparent in this sources.

Here's another, clearer paper:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3701250/ and the most relevant section, with my commentary after:

"SRY is clearly important for the development of male sex, although in rare instances a male phenotype can develop in its absence; but what is the genetic pathway by which SRY creates hormonally competent testes? This proved to be difficult to disentangle, despite the expectation that once the Y-chromosomal male-determining gene was discovered, the elucidation of other genes following in the cascade from the bipotential gonadal rudiment to testis formation would quickly follow. Even after the discovery of further sex-determining genes, their relationship to SRY remains unknown. When a pathogenic mutation has been identified, the phenotypes can also be variable, even within the same family. It has been suggested that new genomic techniques might be required for better diagnoses of patients with disorders of sexual development. But might there be a simpler alternative pathway?"

To clarify the first italicised line, this is clearly pointing out that males can have varying phenotype. That means physical presentation. Not sex. Has nothing to do with whether one is male or female. Having a big nose is phenotypic. This is not news. This is not affecting sex determination.

The second line, then, gives us pretty robust indication that SRY is the sex-determining gene and that further genetic information is secondary, as one would expect, to the determination of sex and instead relates to the differentiation of sex.

here's some more;

https://www.nature.com/articles/348452a0?utm_ this one makes clear that SRY must be active for male sex development to begin. The abstract is enough to grok this.

https://www.nature.com/articles/346240a0?utm_ - the original paper outlining SRY. Take that as you will, as we've come along way in 35 years.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1516467/ a cute line from the abstract here

"A strategy based on determining the precise chromosomal location of this locus has been used to clone a new gene which has been called SRY in humans (Sry in mice). A variety of studies now show that this is indeed the testis-determining gene."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44162-023-00025-8?utm_ and this one, from the short conclusion:

"The peculiar translocation of the SRY gene in 46,XX males strongly supports the inclusion of cytogenetic testing for establishing diagnosis and genetic counseling for infertility and/or hormonal imbalances in individuals."

Males.

And for a bit of a slam-dunk here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22246/?utm_

"Most XX men who lack a Y chromosome do still have a copy of the SRY region on one of their X chromosomes. This copy accounts for their maleness."

All of this clearly shows a relatively stable consensus in the biological literature that SRY is the sex-determining gene and that DSDs are sex-specific. This really isn't a debate.

Just an aside, anyone calling Kathleen Stock anything but principled, forthright and courageous is looking into a void and seeing what they want to.

The notion of allyship, offered to address this problem (which you now seem to recognize is still a problem), is one way to go. — Fire Ologist

When did I not recognize it as a problem?

Biological essentialism cannot be integrated into woke ideology. Feminists think there is something specific and persistent about the biological female that relates to the category of woman. Trans can’t think that. So the two identity types cannot agree on what gender must involve and what gender need not involve. — Fire Ologist

:roll: If Stock were a biological essentialist she would have titled her book The Essential Girl or something. She explicitly rejects biological essentialism.

But my point in raising this is that woke ideology affords no means to satisfy what feminists call unjust oppression while at the same time satisfying what trans call unjust oppression. — Fire Ologist

I already mentioned allyship. I guess you don't believe in it.

My point is, it is the nature of woke to be unable to develop a coherent and just resolution of the conflict between internally warring identity groups. (Just like it is unable to fathom the concept of a white male employed middle class person being victim of a racist black woman.) — Fire Ologist

For a few years in grade school I was a racial minority and experienced racism – physical attacks – for merely being a blonde haired, blue eyed, middle class white kid, though I was unemployed at the time. If I were woke at that time I wouldn't have experienced racism, what?

“Systemic Power Analysis”, “Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category” and “Language Shapes Reality” - these properties or aspects of woke breed the type of conflict that woke cannot resolve between its own identity groups. — Fire Ologist

How does systemic power analysis factor into the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict?

So it seems to me here that, if you wanted to be open and honest, the quote just above means that, to some degree, you see what I am saying, or at least agree with it’s factual basis. You agree that there is no allyship of Trans people with anyone who doesn’t agree with what they say, (like traditional feminists don’t agree). — Fire Ologist

I agree that some trans activists, such as Judith Butler, refuse to compromise with the proposals put forward by material feminists like Stock.

Contrary to what you may believe, wokeism is not a religion with sacred tenets carved in stone by the woke Goddess. It's not even a social movement, lacking organized leadership, structure, or unified goals.

This is supported by nothing and could only make sense to someone who has only engaged with Charlie through a lens of left-wing, hateful rhetoric. — AmadeusD

What is hateful about recognizing that Kirk was heavily invested in the culture war?

Sorry! — Jeremy Murray

Cool cool - good man for even saying it. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

government, representing all citizens, needs to be held to a higher standard. — Jeremy Murray

So I don’t disagree, but I think a small nit-pick will keep my position clear. Because government can have lawful authority to incarcerate people, government is held to the only standard - no laws abridging speech.

As far as some sliding scale of lower, medium higher, that standard might exist between say corporations and universities and small groups and individuals. There might be some degrees of a standard that allows for diversity opinions be expressed, but that is all outside of the one standard involving the government.

I am the one hammering on here, not you, and not out of sense of rightness or anything. More a despairing kind of hammering. — Jeremy Murray

Then I misunderstood you, and it’s my bad. And anyway, we sound a lot alike on some this stuff. I bounce up against despair on occasion and I use plenty of hammers.

Life is more complicated than this, but one issue that exists for all people with conservative ideas is this: how to align with those ideas without being maligned as a racist, facist, homophobic, hypocritical, bigoted, sexist evil doer. The woke had snuck their coolaid well into the water supply for 30 plus years, so for some reason even conservatives feel like they have to confirm whether other people on the right are baddies. It sucks. I think the second election of Trump is finally making a dent in this sense - how could there possibly be this many black, Hispanic, female voters who still vote for a man like Trump? How, because the whole world isn’t about racism, sexism, etc. Conservative ideas are NOT essentially tied to badness. It’s becoming cool to be conservative and speak your mind. More regular folks, of all races and genders and sexual orientations, are coming out of the closet that helped elect Trump the first time.

So, now I have to make clear, Trump is no angel. I held my nose biting for him. But the weakness of the woke left required me to bite against them, as it did for enough people to usher in Trump 2.

Have you seen the interaction between Trump and Carney in the Whitehouse this week? Trump gave Carney a lot of credit calling him a great man, and when asked if that is the case why isn’t there a trade deal yet, Trump said “because I want to be a great man too” and Carney loved it. I believe we are all too harsh on Trump. He is doing a lot of good, and many just refuse to see it.

Plenty of journalists / comedians / etc. are saying things that people disagree with now, but which are things that people were fine with even a few years ago. This is the problem to me. — Jeremy Murray

I agree - comedians/artists are always at the very tip of the spear, maybe even beyond journalists. I think the woke mob canceled and tried to rule them for years - only geniuses like Chapelle and Burr could mock woke and not be canceled.

But I think you are saying that formerly left leaning journalism that was acceptable a few years ago, is now under fire.

First, I agree, formulated that way, it is the same problem with a new bad taste in new mouths. That is the same problem.

However, I think sometimes what can appear to be this problem, isn’t in fact a problem. Like calling what happened to Kimmel an attack on free speech. Or better, calling what happened to Colbert, an attack on free speech. What happened to these guys is that their take on life just isn’t as popular anymore. So it’s not a problem for speech they are being fired or suspended; it’s just response to the winds of popular opinion.

Journalists need to learn how to focus on the facts, how to present all angles, how to refrain from even hinting at their own opinions and analysis, and how important it is that they rebuild credibility. Four years of unanimous conviction of Trumps “Russian collusion” and then unanimous “Hunter Biden’s laptop didn’t exist and was more Russian misinformation” - the press sucks.

This doesn’t justify backlash that is partisan based. Republicans can’t push their narrative through the press like the Dems seem to always do. But the press sucks. That’s its own problem as well.

in 1992 in my psych 100 text with affirmative action. Recipients were likely to doubt themselves in the context of affirmative action. — Jeremy Murray

That is interesting. It took until the year 2024 for enough minorities to allow themselves to admit the truth of things like this.

It is that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars. — Jeremy Murray

I agree one hundred percent. Both sides are guilty of thinking the other side is by default bad.

Honestly, I don’t like any labels because of what they mean to other people. I am honestly a conservative thinker most often, see no need to change certain traditions…. But I don’t really consider myself “a conservative” for two reasons: 1. I do and think things that not conservative, and 2. I am sure I would disagree with how most people might define what a conservative is. So I use the label to facilitate generalizations, but what I really think is, everyone is an individual and there are no conservatives or liberals - these things should be used to help make general points, not to stereotype and dehumanize anyone.

That said, woke ideology, (not all woke people), holds that identity generalizations are really important. So I think the worst proponents of “that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars” comes more often from proponents of woke liberalism. It is just more part of wokeism to hold white republican men as all bad, full stop. Repubs can be just as bad. And it is equally bad for society no matter where is comes from. But one problem with woke is this moralizing of political issues and judging opposing political views and immoral views. I think.

missing in this discussion is the existence of these new public spaces - social media, amplified by the smart phone - that older norms are not equipped to handle.

Of course, objectively, these are 'public' spaces. But they were not conceived as such in the way they have become. Anyone can say one thing in the wrong way, on the wrong day, and have their life changed - even ruined - forever. This has a fear-generating effect, which in part explains the rise of woke. (Too big a topic to cover here, but this is Richard Hanania's argument for why corporations went woke - risk aversion).

I don't even know where to start with this topic. Screen-based existence if altering our lives more profoundly than any technology since, uhh, fire? Nobody was carrying printing-presses around in their pocket in Gutenberg's day.

And the moral systems that dominate - liberal era utilitarianism and deontology - are not flexible or fast enough to process our new world. — Jeremy Murray

Interesting stuff. I was tempted to raise “social media” in some of my posts but felt the same sense of “where to start”. I agree, Social Media is a net new monster in the world. It’s akin to posting a flyer on the street corner, but damn, it is not that at all just as well.

We need to struggle through how to deal with it, but I don’t think I will ever be convinced that government censorship or force of law should have very much place in any management of the shitstorm social media creates. I just know what the UK is doing is utter unjust. I truly can’t fathom some of the outcomes I am hearing about over there.

The internet and social media has had an equalizing effect on people - anyone can get a million likes for anything at all. This has good and bad aspects to it. No one is safe from being hated by the world. And confirmed facts are now doubtful as AI generated content or hallucination. Even fact and fiction have been levelized.

Humanity has been advancing its technology faster than its moral scruples for probably 100 years. Our inventions surpass our ability to use them to improve society. Because we still don’t agree on what needs improving and what an improvement would actually look like. But we keep inventing…

I do think it is pragmatic to consider more than just legal obligations between employer and employee. And that, ultimately, some of those fired should have been fired, and some should not have. — Jeremy Murray

Full agreement. The total discussion of adult, responsible free speech has as much if not more to do with morality as it has to do with the government and politics. The political half is the baseline and priority discussion in the world today as I see so many threats from woke police and FCC fascist types. But the real discussion is about what we do with that political freedom, what we say and how we protect each other from each other. We need to make sure everyone is free from our own governments ability to shut down any political opinion; but then we need to make sure we aren’t shouting down difficult conversations or dehumanizing people as a form of canceling legitimate debate. It will always be tricky. Mistakes will always be made. We all need to remember that.

The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it - no hate? what's hate? whose hate definition? Incitement? — Jeremy Murray

Exactly!

Permit me to add: “The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it, free speech ceases to exist.”

That is the whole political discussion in a nutshell. (Happy to relitigate it with some hate speech legislation proponent, but I doubt I will ever be convinced otherwise.).

Does choosing a 'side' not mean compromising your beliefs on specific issues? — Jeremy Murray

At times, yes. But the world is goin to keep rotating and revolving. No matter how strong one feels about any issue, someone is going to be elected representative, and make laws and spend taxes and make decisions on behalf of all people. I don’t think there is anything compromised by choosing the lesser of evils between an inevitable winner. That literally describes me in the polls every time I vote - I pick who I think might screw up and piss me off and hurt my family the least. Who might, because chances are they likely are going to hurt me. I have never voted for a candidate I thought was really good.

If you feel alone my friend, all I can say is that is a great sign of strength if you you ask me. I just sucks to feel strongly about the truth in a world of sheep who care only about consensus…with other sheep…who also identify as “sheep”.

When did I not recognize it as a problem? — praxis

Umm..

Twice now I said you recognized the problem.

I don’t think you and I can communicate through a message board.

You are all over the place and don’t explain yourself very carefully. Your judgment of what I am trying to say keeps coming out of nowhere to me.

I said you restated the problem (so therefore recognized it) (twice) but you didn’t address it (meaning resolve it).

Then I noted that you offered “allyship” to address it. (So I was working with you, though you don’t appreciate that.)

But I also noted how you showed that allyship was not a solution to all trans arguments. That makes sense to me.

So the more renown trans activists are uncompromising and reject the woke principle of allyship. — praxis

Exactly.

And, now based on these two things that you presented (namely allyship, and trans rejection of allyship), I supported my statement that woke ideology is incapable of bringing trans and feminists back together in a coherent partnership. It’s woke versus woke.

There still seems to be no reason for you to avoid agreeing with the basic fact that trans and feminist ideology are both aligned, and in conflict. I say there are many other examples within wokeness of these irreconcilable identities.

And if you admit this problem is there for trans and feminists, then we might be making some sort of connection. But you don’t want to build any bridge.

I may be wrong, but, are you just trying to win a debate with me or something?

I am trying to understand and develop the notion of “the end of woke”.

———

Contrary to what you may believe, wokeism is not...a social movement, lacking organized leadership, structure, or unified goals. — praxis

Or:

the tenants of wokeism which are:

Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
Systemic Power Analysis
Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
Language Shapes Reality
Moral Urgency and Activism
Intersectionality
Historical Accountability — praxis

So in the words of Roger Daltrey, who the fuck are you?

Tell me what you really think.

That’s how I hold a discussion, how I debate.

But then we have to elect leaders. Then we have to pick a platform (pick a team) and play fair to make a final selection of elected official. — Fire Ologist

The process doesn't end with a vote, though.

fyi, found the old quote on wikiquote

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. The government won't work without it. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. — Barry Goldwater (1994)

You are all over the place and don’t explain yourself very carefully. Your judgment of what I am trying to say keeps coming out of nowhere to me. — Fire Ologist

As I said, I read Stock's book so I'm familiar with the conflict. That's why this branch of the topic interested me.

If you insist on being limited to 'woke eat woke', well then, you do you.

There still seems to be no reason for you to avoid agreeing with the basic fact that trans and feminist ideology are both aligned, and in conflict. — Fire Ologist

I haven't avoided agreement. In fact I wrote:

I agree that some trans activists, such as Judith Butler, refuse to compromise with the proposals put forward by material feminists like Stock.

I say there are many other examples within wokeness of these irreconcilable identities. — Fire Ologist

Why don't you point them out?

And if you admit this problem is there for trans and feminists, then we might be making some sort of connection. But you don’t want to build any bridge. — Fire Ologist

This is truly hilarious. Classic Fire. :lol:

If Wokeness is a religion, who is the greater heretic, Sock or Butler? If I were to indulge the ignorant notion that wokeness is a religion, I would say that Butler is the heretic for rejecting allyship. Yet, generally speaking, Sock is regarded as the heretic within wokedom and was effectively cancelled for her heretical speech acts; resigned her position at the University of Sussex.

The punchline here is that Stock built a bridge that was rejected by the wokest of woke, and by you. You might see her as a champion of reason within the woke community, but no, all you see is 'woke eating woke'.

She explicitly rejects biological essentialism. — praxis

On page five of her paper What Is Sexual Orientation there is evidence to the opposite.

"Sex is appropriately characterised in terms of a cluster of endogenously-produced morphological, genetic, and hormonal features. None of them are individually essential for human femaleness or maleness, though possession of some vague number of them is sufficient for it. This view accommodates the many existing disorders or differences of sexual development well, whilst remaining compatible with realism about biological Sex. Variation can be, and in fact is, endemic to biology generally, without threatening the existence of natural kinds (Dupré 1993)9."

For a few years in grade school I was a racial minority and experienced racism – physical attacks – for merely being a blonde haired, blue eyed, middle class white kid, though I was unemployed at the time. If I were woke at that time I wouldn't have experienced racism, what? — praxis

The position on the left (and posited by officials, in many cases: See Australia's Racial Discrimination minister) is that white's cannot experience racism. I'm not saying that's your position (clearly not) but it is a position taken.

wokeism is not a religion with sacred tenets carved in stone by the woke Goddess. It's not even a social movement, lacking organized leadership, structure, or unified goals — praxis

This is true. But neither is 'the far right'. It would seem naiive to pretend we cannot talk about either group, though, surely. As far as I can tell "wokeism" is a position that requires that social opinion and 'lived experience' trump logical, reasonable or factual arguments - with the result that the stick comes out before the carrot can even be sufficiently described to the opposite side. I don't see it as deeper than that, but almost all instances people call woke I've been able ot break down to this, somewhere.

What is hateful about recognizing that Kirk was heavily invested in the culture war? — praxis

While recognizing hte nature of this question: You must be hateful to posit this, the way you have (which is not exactly what you've said above. You've called him a bigoted grifter).

But as far as I can tell, my assessment of the above would only push people further away from actually hearing what I think. It would cause an emotional frenzy. — Fire Ologist

You might as well, it doesnt look like your going to make any headway with Praxis.

You've called him [Charlie Kirk] a bigoted grifter — AmadeusD

He was a culture war grifter, yes. Everyone needs to make a buck or two, or 12 million.

You might as well, it doesnt look like your going to make any headway with Praxis. — DingoJones

Oh yes, please. Don't hold back on my account.

Wrong. This isn’t government impinging on speech. It’s government saying you can say whatever the hell you want, but that they won’t pay for it anymore. And I’m fine if the government decides not to give money to any college.

Got it yet? — Fire Ologist

I've "got it" that I think you're a hypocrite, because this thread is about you and others losing your shit over things that are orders of magnitude less invasive and less restrictive on speech than what MAGA is doing daily.

And I even forgot some pretty significant stuff, like student visas being revoked on the basis of political views, and academics who tweeted negatively about trump not being allowed into the country.

You quoted the bit about government funding and ignored the rest because that was the one comeback you could think of. And I call BS even on that -- that you'd be excusing a left-wing government making funding of all major institutions provisional on political views.

Sorry man, I still don't. I included five links that are contrary to your generalization, two articles from John Turley who wrote this exhaustive review of free speech and rage politics in the US in 2024.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/199897939-the-indispensable-right

My links aren't long - why not consider them? — Jeremy Murray

You've linked a book here. I am not going to buy and read a book to try to find evidence for you.

I'm absolutely open to having my mind changed. I should mention by the way that I used to be a member of the Conservative party here in the UK, and still consider myself a centrist. But if we're talking about freedom of speech in the US, nothing that happened under Obama or even Biden (who was involved in some of the gagging of Palestinian protests) compares to what's happening under MAGA and project 2025.

It goes to show that all the stuff of "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" (or whatever the exact quote is), was bullshit. The people that whined about trans people choosing their own pronouns don't give a toss about people being deported, defunded, fired, imprisoned etc on the basis of their political views.

And I have explained to you why, in detail: translocation is not a genotype. I even gave you room to say that this is not what you mean. You have not. I presume it is what you mean. Translocation is not a third genotype.

There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY — AmadeusD

I have explained you that I am not talking about translocation; that's your word, not mine. I said the genotype and mentioned alleles.

And the part where your cite disputes your conclusion is this:

"Mutations [of the SRY gene] lead to a range of disorders of sex development with varying effects on an individual's phenotype and genotype"

So it's not binary. Now sure, you can, as this cite has, call all the other genotypes "disorders" but the point is, it hasn't got us any closer to a supposed binary gold standard.
If we're going to arbitrarily say we only accept two forms as "correct", then we could have just done that with genitals, chromosomes etc. The problem remains that you have millions of people worldwide that don't fit in the two boxes.

I've provided air-tight support for [SRY being the (binary) determinator of sex]. — AmadeusD

And then your own cites say:

"SRY is clearly important for the development of male sex, although in rare instances a male phenotype can develop in its absence"
"Most XX men who lack a Y chromosome do still have a copy of the SRY region on one of their X chromosomes. This copy accounts for their maleness" (emphasis added)

I don't understand why you don't read your own cites.
Look, I'm not your enemy here. Consider this helpful because one day you could be on a debate stage trying to defend these talking points.