The News Thread

[tagradh]

I just notice that if a liberal talks long enough, they usually talk themselves into a corner

My hungover/drunk brain took longer than it should have to think of the term for 'non liberal American' but it did kinda highlight how fucking stupid the American usage of the word is.

The average American, even 'liberal' 'socialist' types, believes in relatively free markets. The average American, liberal, socialist, progressive, conservative, republican, democrat, whatever, believes in a degree of personal freedom that an islamist fucktard would balk at. I guess the US, being backwards as shit in some places, has more people that don't than the most of the developed world, but still... In general, Americans are liberal. That the US has taken this word and concept so far off track is ridiculous. That retards in the UK, and I'm guessing Canada, Australia, etc. too have followed you is fucking irritating.

What I find kinda funny is that the people that get most upset over islamists, or conservatives elsewhere in the world, are the ones that have the most in common with them. Well, claim to. But I guess rampant hypocrisy is a common trait.

 

[CiG]

That whole comment is a swarming mass of incoherent bullshit.

 

[rms]

I know Ein deleted it before I could quote it, but I wrote a research paper on the first "lunatick" hospital in British North America which was actually funded by 'ol Benjamin Franklin. Most mentally disabled people were locked away in attics or something similar until then. Britain had their first around the turn of the 18th century.


http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/features/creation.html

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I think it is pretty racist. Something doesn't become not racist because you don't want it to be, especially so just because the intersection of oppression is a fundamental political position of yours.

You're learning...

But seriously, the intersection of oppression (as you call it) doesn't mean that all oppression is interchangeable or equal. I also don't believe I've ever used the term intersectionality. Intersectionality is the ID politics catchword to express Marxist alienation and disenfranchisement because people were upset that Marx didn't write much about women or blacks (a fair criticism, but overblown in my opinion). His laborers were white and male, for the most part. I don't think we needed ID politics to make up for this lack.

But I still think my comments are being misinterpreted, as I say below...

If you wouldn't say it in front of black people, it probably shouldn't be brought up. I thought this kind of stuff is why people are protesting...?

I would say this in front of black people. I'm not equating the treatment of blacks during slavery with the treatment of transgender people today. I'm saying there is a historical parallel between how we talk about mental illness/inferiority and associate with a particular group of people. That's not something I would be timid to say in front of a black colleague

I have to entirely adopt its perspective and the various baggage which informs Foucault's creative license on display in the book to have read it?

So what insanity has always been around? That's an irrelevant factoid.

Insanity has been recognized as such for centuries, it was just attributed to different things. You think they didn't have asylums in the eighteenth century? I was saying that there was some primitive science of conventional behavior that recognized certain behaviors as "insane."

It matters because, once again, the descriptions of insanity/madness fit the same functional parameters as those of racial inferiority. They were just different discourses.

I know Ein deleted it before I could quote it, but I wrote a research paper on the first "lunatick" hospital in British North America which was actually funded by 'ol Benjamin Franklin. Most mentally disabled people were locked away in attics or something similar until then. Britain had their first around the turn of the 18th century.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/features/creation.html

Sorry, forgot to add quotes from a couple other people to my reply. It's back now.

 

[CiG]

But seriously, the intersection of oppression (as you call it) doesn't mean that all oppression is interchangeable or equal. I also don't believe I've ever used the term intersectionality. Intersectionality is the ID politics catchword to express Marxist alienation and disenfranchisement because people were upset that Marx didn't write much about women or blacks (a fair criticism, but overblown in my opinion). His laborers were white and male, for the most part. I don't think we needed ID politics to make up for this lack.

I know you didn't use the word, but the word's spirit is often in your opinions.

I would say this in front of black people. I'm not equating the treatment of blacks during slavery with the treatment of transgender people today. I'm saying there is a historical parallel between how we talk about mental illness/inferiority and associate with a particular group of people. That's not something I would be timid to say in front of a black colleague

The difference here is obvious to me: blacks were told and/or diagnosed as subhuman, primitive, violent, mentally defective etc. Trans people however will tell you without any prompting that they deal with issues of a mental health nature. In fact if they didn't say anything, we wouldn't even know transgender status was a thing. I have several trans friends and even the least politically active of them will vote almost entirely based on how it impacts her healthcare in relation to her mental health.

Hell, there is probably a more tangible connection between trans people and males, if we are to go by the male rates of homelessness, drug addiction and suicides.

Simply speaking, I see next to no similarity between trans people and black people.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know you didn't use the word, but the word's spirit is often in your opinions.

I imagine it is, but I don't even know what that spirit would be, honestly.

The difference here is obvious to me: blacks were told and/or diagnosed as subhuman, primitive, violent, mentally defective etc. Trans people however will tell you without any prompting that they deal with issues of a mental health nature.

The latter may be true, but why are we assuming that transgender individuals haven't suffered dehumanizing treatment? Based on what I've read, transgender individuals have often been denied full acknowledgement as legal/sane subjects. I don't see how we can appeal to a history of transgender people that begins in the past twenty or even fifty years, and claim that they have propagated their own unfair treatment, or some such.

Transgender has been a recorded phenomenon for a long time, and it was often associated with mental illness and primitivism. These perspectives weren't promoted by transgender individuals themselves; they were propagated by legal and medical institutions.

 

[CiG]

The latter may be true, but why are we assuming that transgender individuals haven't suffered dehumanizing treatment? Based on what I've read, transgender individuals have often been denied full acknowledgement as legal/sane subjects. I don't see how we can appeal to a history of transgender people that begins in the past twenty or even fifty years, and claim that they have propagated their own unfair treatment, or some such.

Transgender has been a recorded phenomenon for a long time, and it was often associated with mental illness and primitivism. These perspectives weren't promoted by transgender individuals themselves; they were propagated by legal and medical institutions.

No, I would agree that they have suffered dehumanizing treatment to some degree, especially at the hands of psychiatry in particular.

The crux of my point is that, even when in some utopian future where trans people are treated as 100% equals, it will still be a mental health status, it will still be anomalous to human nature and it will still be something that by its very nature will require treatments, surgeries and so on.

Transgenderism can never be separated from this, whereas being black was separated from the realm of mental health once society moved away from science-based racism.

Though, unfortunately the alt-right are actually attempting a shift back to this crude era of science-based racism. One somewhat prominent individual within the alt-right even suggested that interracial sex may be a form of beastiality...

 

[Dak]

Does it bring them to the level of the general population? No. Does it reduce the levels relative to trans people (note there is supposed to be a space there,) absolutely.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27536118

The effect of cross-sex hormonal treatment on gender dysphoria individuals' mental health: a systematic review.

Research tends to support the evidence that hormone therapy reduces symptoms of anxiety and dissociation, lowering perceived and social distress and improving quality of life and self-esteem in both male-to-female and female-to-male individuals.

Less consistent findings support an association between hormonal treatment and other mental health-related dimensions. In particular, depression, global psychopathology, and psychosocial functioning difficulties appear to reduce only in some studies, while others do not suggest any improvement in these domains.

So no, not absolutely. It might make them feel more at ease in their skin at the moment, and psychological boost from treatment is common across all sorts of medical treatments. That does not mean it carries into all domains.

And as I've said before - when society at large views you as disgusting and treats you as such - violently and with hate, you're going to be an at risk population. The fault lies with society not giving trans people a place.

The society that paid and cheered Chelsea Manning and Caitlyn Jenner? Come on.

Insanity has been recognized as such for centuries, it was just attributed to different things. You think they didn't have asylums in the eighteenth century? I was saying that there was some primitive science of conventional behavior that recognized certain behaviors as "insane."

It matters because, once again, the descriptions of insanity/madness fit the same functional parameters as those of racial inferiority. They were just different discourses.

What "functional parameters"? Exclusion?

 

[Nate Skalman]

I don't think Whoopi Goldberg, and Rosie O'Donnel get this sidetracked...are we even talking about transgenders in the military anymore?

 

[Nate Skalman]

And yeah, I use the word liberal...I understand the true concept, but basically it means "more" government. When people want the government to get involved in personal matters (bullying, identity, feelings of inadequacy), that's becoming modern liberalISM...you don't have to be in a narrow definitive, or be politically involved to have liberal sensibilities. Watch 'Curb your enthusiasm'- all the Hollywood entertainment circle refer to themselves as "liberals" to separate themselves from the likes of Mel Gibson, Mark Wahlberg etc...to me, if you're left voting and want the government and taxpayers to take on identity laws, that would make you a liberal of sorts. Once you become passionate about defending a political base, you've now identified yourself as a supporter of that base. "Liberal" has become a broad term, I agree

 

[Einherjar86]

What "functional parameters"? Exclusion?

Insanity/madness = characterized in part by animality/primitivism.

Racial otherness = characterized in part by animality/primitivism.

Both of these discourses converge in legal writings from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Criminals were believed to have regressed to a more primitive or animalistic state. Coincidentally, black people and the mentally insane were both associated with the criminal "type."

So again, the discourses were different, but the descriptions overlapped.

And yeah, I use the word liberal...I understand the true concept, but basically it means "more" government.

So does conservatism; it's just a matter of where more/less government gets applied.

 

[Nate Skalman]

Wow, thanks for the eye opener

 

[Nate Skalman]

Open a dictionary....look up the word 'conservative'...tell me what it says. Once again only someone who identifies themselves as a liberal (is that worded better) would use a "they're just as bad as us" excuse to ignore fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. Everything jumps off to a side argument. Debate team in college typically stayed on platform- these arguments seem to go everywhere lol

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't need to look it up. It refers to someone who adheres to traditional or classical values. In the case of political conservatives, that means people who want government to regulate/restrict non-traditional behaviors.

This is all very vague, but then that's politi-speak.

 

[Nate Skalman]

Actually, a conservative government is embraces a system where the central government sticks to national policy and individual states let the voters of said state dictate their own laws. Liberals want laws pertaining to state policy to be "overseen" by a large, far reaching central government

 

[Nate Skalman]

But yeah...the meaning has gotten pretty murky

 

[Einherjar86]

Because the contemporary conservative Christian demographic really isn't all that conservative (or all that Christian). But yes, I know that conservatives are vocally opposed to strong central government.

In other news: http://nypost.com/2017/08/31/lawmaker-wants-confederate-monument-vandal-found-hung/

A Missouri lawmaker said in a Wednesday Facebook post that he hoped whoever placed paint on a Confederate monument in Springfield is found and hanged, prompting Democratic leaders to ask him to step down over what they’re describing as a call for a lynching.

“This is totally against the law,” Republican Rep. Warren Love wrote in the post. “I hope they are found & hung from a tall tree with a long rope.”

The word you're looking for, sir, is lynched.

 

[Nate Skalman]

I agree. conservative politics and conservative values are also two different things...anyhoo...hanging someone over some vandalism seems possibly a little excessive- I was thinking a fine and community service lol

 

[Nate Skalman]

You really got to laugh at some of these people

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd be down with a fine and community service.