"The political deployment of GLP-1's" is so funny. No one is being forced to take them and they aren't addictive drugs, you can stop taking them at any time.
Once more folk mistake consumer preference for forced mandate.
People do this with eugenics too. They think deciding to abort a fetus with severe disabilities is eugenics. It's not. It's only eugenics if the state forces you to abort.
I think I may have to watch the video just to see how far out these people go.
I'm not sure anti-eugenics is the starting point, the original sacred value, that leads one to health-fascism. That seems like too much of a given. Most people would think "eugenics bad" is a fundamental, even sacred, belief without ending up anywhere near the same end point as these people. I think the original starting point and sacred value might be "everybody is equal in every way" or "inclusivity at all costs."
I think that the sacred value at play here is diversity.
While in practice, diversity writ large has been a resource for humanity for a long time, for most of that time it was something people tried to control, or at best manage. Modern liberalism obviously has a problem with the social control needed to do that, and so anti-anti-diversity became a thing.
Now though, diversity for it's own sake has become a virtue. People have lost sight of the fact that it was originally needed so we could treat people as the individuals they are rather than the existing diverse groups they come from and ironically the groups themselves become sacred, regardless of how the actual individuals feel.
As someone who does push-ups, sit-ups, dips, and many other such exercises, even with added weight, I do not feel like Beatrice is extending the circle of solidarity. She is in fact excluding me from it. And really, that comment from Adam Johnson, highlights how the Woke Left is almost obsessed with reducing the circle and excluding the vast majority of people from their moral high perch.
I think the idea of “fat genocide” is related to the idea that genocide often eliminates a culture by converting the members of that culture to other cultural practices. Making all the Irish kids speak English or forcibly converting Native Americans to Christianity are ways to eliminate a culture without killing anyone. And I think the idea of “fat genocide” is that encouraging and assisting fat people to become skinny is a way to eliminate fat culture without killing anyone.
Now I’m not convinced that there is such a thing as fat culture (the way there really are Deaf cultures, given that they are groups of people who share a language) so I’m definitely not convinced that anything here is morally equivalent to even this weaker sense of genocide without death.
But I also think it’s true that engaging with the pile on instigated by right wingers is almost never a useful thing to do. What exactly is the good supposed to be in showing the world clips of weirdos at Socialism 2026 being weird? If someone were actually financially supporting this activity, maybe letting those people know what’s going on with their financial support is helpful, but it just seems sad for us here to be staring.
I am very much not convinced that sharing these clips promotes those goals. Instead, it makes it "*those* people are like *that*, and *we* aren't", which is then exactly the kind of thing that provokes some people to reverse your message because they don't like you.
You've been on social media, right? You understand that pile-ons often end up elevating the people being piled-on, among opponents of the ones doing the pile-on, right?
I suppose if all you care about is that your friends don't become like those people, sure, it's going to work. But if you actually care to prevent people *generally* taking on extremist views, elevating them and saying "look how extremist these people are" isn't usually helpful.
Maybe some of those people who attended Socialism 2026 and it all sounded good to them at the time will go home and realize, "Everyone thinks we're crazy."
Not the people directly being attacked or quoted, that never works. But the attendees who were there and didn't speak and could credibly claim, "Oh yeah, hah-hah Socialism 2026 was crazy!"
When a group of people hosts a giant event explicitly for the purpose of expressing what they believe, what exactly is wrong about posting them expressing their beliefs and saying you think its bad? Are you supposed to pretend you think it isn't bad because people you disagree with in other areas also think its bad?
So what, we're at "changing people's minds is genocide" now? I think even Amnesty International is a few years out from being willing to go that far, though someone is free to convince me otherwise if they're willing to be a perpetrator.
This is a logical conclusion of a movement that agrees with pet victim protection [1]. It’s the same thing when their ilk defend the “rights” of vagrants to act out on public transit without the infliction of force. And when the default stance towards deviants is “society should accommodate you” instead of “do as you’re told or else”, you get their version of paradise - which is basically Portland 2021. There’s nothing wrong with shrinking the circle and inflicting as much force on those outside it.
The whole “fitness!!111” thing if nothing else shows how underrated it is discursively to just engage at the object level. Taking a step back from epistemics to be like “this person saying this ridiculous thing is on My Team because her heart is behind the Right Cause” - leaving aside the ethical and semiotic implications - is just a fundamentally neurotic, speculative, and hapless exercise. It is just better along every axis to straightforwardly talk about things!
"Harrison has their own book". Ah, I notice we're making fun of some absurdities and completely indulging others.
Also, as far as Charlie Kirk goes, ShoeOnHead's video was the best summation of the whole affair. I don't think the writer really contends with the degree to which millions of young people, mostly female, cheer assassination "because he was racist." It was not because the Right tried to turn him into a martyr. The former preceded the latter. This is a huge problem for our country.
I think that asking whether Kirk was a good or bad person really misses the point. He was all the opposite of the things you criticize Hunter Biden for, after all. He was a self-made, religiously committed father and husband, but what’s instructive about him is that he successfully mobilized his supporters to vote in a way that aligned with what he believed to be right.
I think Democrats should learn from how he accomplished that, even from a grassroots organizing perspective. He took mostly popular positions, and built a coalition from there. In the wake of his assassination many on the left were baited into taking yet another unpopular, indefensible position by saying that he deserved to die. I know you aren’t saying this, but I think that Democrats continue to miss why Kirk was successful. The Klein piece sought to push them toward that analysis, albeit with a silly title.
Let’s hope it was full-fat whole milk in the drawer, otherwise those eggs are complicit in fat genocide.
"The political deployment of GLP-1's" is so funny. No one is being forced to take them and they aren't addictive drugs, you can stop taking them at any time.
Once more folk mistake consumer preference for forced mandate.
People do this with eugenics too. They think deciding to abort a fetus with severe disabilities is eugenics. It's not. It's only eugenics if the state forces you to abort.
I think I may have to watch the video just to see how far out these people go.
I'm not sure anti-eugenics is the starting point, the original sacred value, that leads one to health-fascism. That seems like too much of a given. Most people would think "eugenics bad" is a fundamental, even sacred, belief without ending up anywhere near the same end point as these people. I think the original starting point and sacred value might be "everybody is equal in every way" or "inclusivity at all costs."
I do like the discussion of sacred values, though, I think that's spot-on.
I think that the sacred value at play here is diversity.
While in practice, diversity writ large has been a resource for humanity for a long time, for most of that time it was something people tried to control, or at best manage. Modern liberalism obviously has a problem with the social control needed to do that, and so anti-anti-diversity became a thing.
Now though, diversity for it's own sake has become a virtue. People have lost sight of the fact that it was originally needed so we could treat people as the individuals they are rather than the existing diverse groups they come from and ironically the groups themselves become sacred, regardless of how the actual individuals feel.
As someone who does push-ups, sit-ups, dips, and many other such exercises, even with added weight, I do not feel like Beatrice is extending the circle of solidarity. She is in fact excluding me from it. And really, that comment from Adam Johnson, highlights how the Woke Left is almost obsessed with reducing the circle and excluding the vast majority of people from their moral high perch.
On some debate parts of the internet, asking socialists whether Hasan shocked his dog has become the left wing version of "who won the 2020 election?"
They're extremely explicit about lying about whay they actually believe in service to their greater cause
I think the idea of “fat genocide” is related to the idea that genocide often eliminates a culture by converting the members of that culture to other cultural practices. Making all the Irish kids speak English or forcibly converting Native Americans to Christianity are ways to eliminate a culture without killing anyone. And I think the idea of “fat genocide” is that encouraging and assisting fat people to become skinny is a way to eliminate fat culture without killing anyone.
Now I’m not convinced that there is such a thing as fat culture (the way there really are Deaf cultures, given that they are groups of people who share a language) so I’m definitely not convinced that anything here is morally equivalent to even this weaker sense of genocide without death.
But I also think it’s true that engaging with the pile on instigated by right wingers is almost never a useful thing to do. What exactly is the good supposed to be in showing the world clips of weirdos at Socialism 2026 being weird? If someone were actually financially supporting this activity, maybe letting those people know what’s going on with their financial support is helpful, but it just seems sad for us here to be staring.
I think promoting a norm or “don’t be like this” and “it’s ok to write off some demographics” is a worthy goal of sharing those clips.
I am very much not convinced that sharing these clips promotes those goals. Instead, it makes it "*those* people are like *that*, and *we* aren't", which is then exactly the kind of thing that provokes some people to reverse your message because they don't like you.
The reaction seems to be “look at these nutters, so let’s not be like them”, with the implication of “being like them makes one a nut”.
You've been on social media, right? You understand that pile-ons often end up elevating the people being piled-on, among opponents of the ones doing the pile-on, right?
I suppose if all you care about is that your friends don't become like those people, sure, it's going to work. But if you actually care to prevent people *generally* taking on extremist views, elevating them and saying "look how extremist these people are" isn't usually helpful.
Maybe some of those people who attended Socialism 2026 and it all sounded good to them at the time will go home and realize, "Everyone thinks we're crazy."
Not the people directly being attacked or quoted, that never works. But the attendees who were there and didn't speak and could credibly claim, "Oh yeah, hah-hah Socialism 2026 was crazy!"
When a group of people hosts a giant event explicitly for the purpose of expressing what they believe, what exactly is wrong about posting them expressing their beliefs and saying you think its bad? Are you supposed to pretend you think it isn't bad because people you disagree with in other areas also think its bad?
So what, we're at "changing people's minds is genocide" now? I think even Amnesty International is a few years out from being willing to go that far, though someone is free to convince me otherwise if they're willing to be a perpetrator.
I think that intentionally preventing a new generation from learning the language of their ancestors has been considered that for a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide
I did my part for the Revolution last night by drinking three Bud Heavies and eating half a pint of ice cream.
This is a logical conclusion of a movement that agrees with pet victim protection [1]. It’s the same thing when their ilk defend the “rights” of vagrants to act out on public transit without the infliction of force. And when the default stance towards deviants is “society should accommodate you” instead of “do as you’re told or else”, you get their version of paradise - which is basically Portland 2021. There’s nothing wrong with shrinking the circle and inflicting as much force on those outside it.
[1] https://madogiwazoku.substack.com/p/on-pet-victim-protection
The whole “fitness!!111” thing if nothing else shows how underrated it is discursively to just engage at the object level. Taking a step back from epistemics to be like “this person saying this ridiculous thing is on My Team because her heart is behind the Right Cause” - leaving aside the ethical and semiotic implications - is just a fundamentally neurotic, speculative, and hapless exercise. It is just better along every axis to straightforwardly talk about things!
I'm not a fan of Hunter Biden but being a drug addict is not a reason he (or anyone else) is a bad person. Drug addiction is a disease.
"Harrison has their own book". Ah, I notice we're making fun of some absurdities and completely indulging others.
Also, as far as Charlie Kirk goes, ShoeOnHead's video was the best summation of the whole affair. I don't think the writer really contends with the degree to which millions of young people, mostly female, cheer assassination "because he was racist." It was not because the Right tried to turn him into a martyr. The former preceded the latter. This is a huge problem for our country.
I think that asking whether Kirk was a good or bad person really misses the point. He was all the opposite of the things you criticize Hunter Biden for, after all. He was a self-made, religiously committed father and husband, but what’s instructive about him is that he successfully mobilized his supporters to vote in a way that aligned with what he believed to be right.
I think Democrats should learn from how he accomplished that, even from a grassroots organizing perspective. He took mostly popular positions, and built a coalition from there. In the wake of his assassination many on the left were baited into taking yet another unpopular, indefensible position by saying that he deserved to die. I know you aren’t saying this, but I think that Democrats continue to miss why Kirk was successful. The Klein piece sought to push them toward that analysis, albeit with a silly title.
I know I'm always jumping on you when you pick on Australia, but what are your better ideas for protecting children on the internet?