1984 Doublespeak and Newspeak

[Trausti]

I get it. You have a list of "biological woman" criteria that is all about appearances and bodies,

A cat raised in a human house can immediately recognize another cat. How does it do that?

 

[Trausti]

Thank goodness I don't need to get any of that specific information about a person or judge their appearance to be anything in particular in order to regard them with empathy and accept their full humanity.

Really. Stop with the straw man.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, it's interesting insofar as the doublespeak on display here.

Someone is claiming that others bring up genitals incessantly.

Yet these same people bring up genitals, by necessity and their own admission, whenever they address any person with any pronoun, unless expected by the decorum of the place, and then only at great dismay.

My bringing it up as an example of "newspeak I particularly dislike", something which is notably the topic, is "discussion on topic".

The vocal objections to this recognition, well, those are not "discussion on topic" so much as "topic of discussion".

In fact, if I don't miss my guess here, I'm pretty sure every post not trying to downplay a deadly disease and exactly the behaviors that spread it (and even some of those) of certain sources generally bring up their opinions on others' genitals and the right to say loudly on mixed company anything about those strangers' genitals, and insist that everyone else do likewise as a normal course of speech.

As regards my normal interests here, at least I have some...

 

[Elixir]

I get it. You have a list of "biological woman" criteria that is all about appearances and bodies,

A cat raised in a human house can immediately recognize another cat. How does it do that?

So men and women are different species in your ironclad worldview?
That would explain a lot.
The preoccupation you deny is so flagrantly on display here, it’s a snicker fest.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're so on the wrong side of history that you might as well hide in a bunker.

 

[Angry Floof]

That's the ticket! How would you recognize someone who isn't blindly tribalistic?

 

[Bomb#20]

That's the ticket! How would you recognize someone who isn't blindly tribalistic?

Well, the first thing to check for is whether someone practices the principles she condemns her outgroup for not practicing...

In fact, I'd say quite often feelings change reality on a social level when a humane regard for people is stronger and more widely held than bigotry from social dominance baboons.

You should ask more women than what you find in a white supremacist group how they feel about trans women. The majority of us do not feel threatened.

The notion that women who don't want men in the women's bathroom are white supremacists occurred to you not because you have the slightest reason to believe it's true but because that's the sort of go-to bigoted stereotype your ingroup uses on its outgroup. And you posted that malice to a public discussion forum because you think like a social dominance baboon.

Again, I hope someday soon you learn to acknowledge and value your own humanness over winning arguments and trying to verbally punish outgroups.

And the rest of us will continue to make you as uncomfortable as possible doing so in order to help protect vulnerable groups, just as we've always done.

You gloried in winning arguments by verbally punishing your outgroup literally two sentences before you accused your opponent of doing it.

You're so on the wrong side of history that you might as well hide in a bunker.

...and the second thing to check for is whether she can control her knee-jerk impulse to compare her opponents to Hitler.

 

[Angry Floof]

For the nth time, YOU ARE NOT MY OUTGROUP. You are Uncle Bomb at the Thanksgiving table. I would call him out for his vile and backward views, too, and still not kick him out of the family, still care about whether his surgery went well, or whatever. I wouldn't punish him and I'm not punishing you. Get a grip.

The whole "not-our-ideology-equals-enemy" is YOUR thing, not mine. And you're damn right that people of humane values and principles will absolutely make you uncomfortable when you express inhumane views. I know that right wing minds tend to think of liberals and leftists and progressives as weak, but we are anything but. But that's not punishing you, either.

And it's also YOUR ideological leanings that given the right conditions will inevitably lead exactly where Germany went. There's nothing knee jerk about it. It would do you good to be able to identify those tendencies in your own thinking so you don't end up having your animal brain prejudices hijacked by con artists and autocrats. I did it. It's not hard.

And that's why I ask again, how would you recognize someone who doesn't think in terms of us vs. them, in-group/out-group?

 

[Metaphor]

And you're damn right that people of humane values and principles will absolutely make you uncomfortable when you express inhumane views.

What is inhumane about believing biological facts?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sometime back the DOD began using the term 'kinetic action'. Instead of an attack dropping bombs, it is a kinetic action.

Kinetic Actions are distinct from Orbital Jewish Space Laser attacks. It would include dropping bombs, but also dropping non-explosive shells. Or putting non-nuclear crowbars on the tips of our missiles and having those come in at reentry velocity.
But distinct from energy based weapons using sound or light, or cyber attacks with no moving parts, or psyops.

It's not doublespeak, it's taxonomy. Tech advances and so do our options.

This, English has no word that encompasses the variety of weapons that exist today.

And even "kinetic action" has holes. What do you call a "warhead" consisting of basically heavy duty tinsel and a charge to disperse it? It doesn't penetrate, it has no meaningful blast wave. Explode it over a substation and the lights go out until the mess is cleaned up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the best modern examples is the change from illegal immigrants to undocumented immigrants implying a legal immigration status or if not legal 'not illegal'..

Indeed, and a bank robbery is an undocumented withdrawal.

Here in California, homeless drug addicts and mental patients are referred to as "unhoused" or some such nonsense.

Note that "homeless" has negative connotations that aren't always meaningful. I have been "homeless" for a period of 7 months long ago. Nothing negative about it, just my parents chose not to maintain a residence during a period of extended travel. And what was the difference between that and a later period of travel where we did own a house? I actually spent far more nights under nothing but cloth on that second trip.

Note, also, thru-hikers. They tend to be young enough they don't own a house--an awful lot of them store their stuff and maintain no residence during their hike. Once again, not what comes to mind for "homeless".

Oh, and from global warming to climate change to climate emergency. Utter bollocks.

That's because so many on the right tried to rebut "warming" by citing examples of cooler weather. Nitpicking--fundamentally, the problem is it's getting warmer. It's just the more energy involved the more variability also.

 

[Angry Floof]

And you're damn right that people of humane values and principles will absolutely make you uncomfortable when you express inhumane views.

What is inhumane about believing biological facts?

You're ignoring all but a narrow set of facts.

But since we're on the topic, what are your values and principles? Just curious.

 

[Metaphor]

And you're damn right that people of humane values and principles will absolutely make you uncomfortable when you express inhumane views.

What is inhumane about believing biological facts?

You're ignoring all but a narrow set of facts.

What facts am I ignoring that I should not be ignoring? Indeed, it seems to me the opposite: the gender cultists ignore or outright deny a swathe of relevant facts when discussing this topic.

But since we're on the topic, what are your values and principles? Just curious.

It would be difficult to summarise them here, but one thing I am for is freedom from religion, in a very general sense in social life, but very especially I am against the State coercing religious utterances from people. Right now, the State can and does punish people for not engaging in the pronoun fantasies of others.

 

[Angry Floof]

The FACT that there are a lot of human beings whose bodies do not fall into that narrow binary. Nature makes us in all kinds of ways, but she makes us all human. Black and white is a terrible framework to apply to your fellow human beings.

As for your principles, it seems you value holding power accountable. The State is power. If you believe the State should be absolutely riddled with checks and balances, operating under the fullest extent of transparency, and fortified to protect democracy from authoritarians, then I would agree.

I do think you are totally overreacting to people asking to use their preferred pronouns. I mean really, right wingers catastrophize the smallest, most insignificant things into paranoid fever dreams.

If you don't want to use their pronouns, don't. You'll just be an asshole. You won't be harmed or arrested or whatever right wing fear fantasy is going on in your head.

Just do a thought experiment where you imagine yourself having been born with, say, both male and female genitals. That would be your reality, your subjective experience of being alive. And being alive in a culture that is still deeply entrenched in a religious judgement/punishment paradigm that is afraid of anything falling outside of its narrow, UNnatural framework for what humans should be and using shame as a weapon to demean. That "beat them down/cast them out" rather than "accept them/lift them up" mentality runs deep and wide through right wing ideology. I don't want you to solve any problems you think would apply to your hermaphrodite condition. I just want you to take some time to ask yourself what that would feel like emotionally.

I have no problem summarizing my principles and values. They are protecting the most vulnerable among us and holding power accountable and in check. They are promoting education and social responsibility and awareness. They are empowering women because that's how you increase peace and prosperity for everyone. They are recognizing my tribe of seven billion in developing my principles, values, and views. There's a lot more I could say, but I think that sums me up fairly well.

 

[Metaphor]

The FACT that there are a lot of human beings whose bodies do not fall into that narrow binary.

You are already begging the question. What binary? The sex binary? Mammals have two sexes: female, the sex that has large, sessile gametes, and male, the sex that has small, motile gametes.

There are people who have differences of sexual development, but they are not a third sex and they are still either male or female. However, the question of intersex people is a furphy. And, if I'm honest, it's really a dishonest tactic. Gender cultists have no interest in intersex people and nor do they want people to prove they are in any way intersex in order to 'identify' as the other sex or as 'non-binary'.

As for your principles, it seems you value holding power accountable. The State is power. If you believe the State should be absolutely riddled with checks and balances, operating under the fullest extent of transparency, and fortified to protect democracy from authoritarians, then I would agree.

I do think you are totally overreacting to people asking to use their preferred pronouns. I mean really, right wingers catastrophize the smallest, most insignificant things into paranoid fever dreams.

Of course you think I am over-reacting, because you hold different values and you do not empathise with people you don't agree with. I don't care if people ask me to use 'preferred pronouns'. I might do it as a polite fiction and I might not. I have vegan friends who I will cook vegan lunches for, not because I believe human beings are meant to be vegans but because they are my friends.

But it seems you haven't heard anything I've said. You may think it is okay for the State to force me to use 'preferred pronouns', but I do not. I believe preferred pronouns are a religious belief and I do not want the State to compel religious utterances from my lips. You simply do not care that the State will punish me for it, because the State is enforcing your preferred religion.

Stop putting your religion on me.

If you don't want to use their pronouns, don't. You'll just be an asshole. You won't be harmed or arrested or whatever right wing fear fantasy is going on in your head.

Yes, I will almost certainly be harmed socially and I can definitely get State punishment. In Australia, people have been forced by tribunals to pay $10,000 as compensation for 'misgendering' or issue apologies. I know you don't care because what happens to the infidels is of no concern to you, and/or you think we deserve it. It is not a 'fear fantasy', it is a reality, and your denying that reality is a gaslighting tactic.

Just do a thought experiment where you imagine yourself having been born with, say, both male and female genitals. That would be your reality, your subjective experience of being alive. And being alive in a culture that is still deeply entrenched in a religious judgement/punishment paradigm that is afraid of anything falling outside of its narrow, UNnatural framework for what humans should be and using shame as a weapon to demean. That "beat them down/cast them out" rather than "accept them/lift them up" mentality runs deep and wide through right wing ideology. I don't want you to solve any problems you think would apply to your hermaphrodite condition. I just want you to take some time to ask yourself what that would feel like emotionally.

"Hermaphorditism" and intersex conditions are a complete furphy. Stop bringing it up. Nobody should be persecuted because they have disorders of sexual development.

I have no problem summarizing my principles and values. They are protecting the most vulnerable among us and holding power accountable and in check. They are promoting education and social responsibility and awareness. They are empowering women because that's how you increase peace and prosperity for everyone. They are recognizing my tribe of seven billion in developing my principles, values, and views. There's a lot more I could say, but I think that sums me up fairly well.

Empowering women?

What is a woman?

 

[Bomb#20]

For the nth time, YOU ARE NOT MY OUTGROUP.

Floof, that's about as convincing as "I'm not antisemitic; one of my best friends is a Jew." Over and over you treat unbelievers in your faith as not entitled to moral consideration. If you did this to everyone it would look different; but you don't come off as a sociopath. You come off as one of the most blindly tribalistic posters in the forum.

You are Uncle Bomb at the Thanksgiving table. I would call him out for his vile and backward views, too, and still not kick him out of the family, still care about whether his surgery went well, or whatever.

Am I? Okay, tell me this. Would you casually tell your family at the Thanksgiving table that Uncle Bob's wife, whom you've never met and don't know anything about, is a white supremacist?

I wouldn't punish him and I'm not punishing you. Get a grip.

No, you just announce, with zero reason to believe it's true, that I have vile and backward views. And you do this to make me as uncomfortable as possible doing so in order to help protect vulnerable groups. I don't know what word your idiolect uses for that sort of behavior, but in English, that's called punishing people.

The whole "not-our-ideology-equals-enemy" is YOUR thing, not mine.

Wanting to be the hero of your own narrative enough to self-delude does not magically stop what you do from amounting to treating infidels as enemies.

And you're damn right that people of humane values and principles will absolutely make you uncomfortable when you express inhumane views. I know that right wing minds tend to think of liberals and leftists and progressives as weak, but we are anything but. But that's not punishing you, either.

You seem to have mistaken what you're doing for shaming. It isn't. Shaming is drawing attention to someone's shameful behavior -- i.e., it's what I'm doing to you. What you've done to me and to Metaphor and others isn't shaming. Trumping up false charges against someone with reckless disregard for the truth isn't shaming; it's just libel.

I'm not a right wing mind. I'm a liberal. You have no rational grounds for thinking I'm a right-winger; it's just that from a left-wing authoritarian perspective ordinary moderate people look right-wing. And I have never thought of leftists and progressives as weak -- as you say, you're anything but; it's why I focus most of my efforts here on refuting the new aggressive rising religion instead of the old tired dying-out religion. You guys are powerful, and you use your power to punish your enemies. In this country that means you libel them in order to convince others to do them social and economic harm. In countries like Australia, where you guys have even more power to punish them because legal free speech protections are inadequate, you prosecute them. And if you think for a minute that you personally wouldn't shut your opponents up by force if you were authorized to, then you appear not to have been reading your own posts.

And it's also YOUR ideological leanings that given the right conditions will inevitably lead exactly where Germany went.

The reason you say that about me even though you haven't got the slightest rational basis for thinking it's true is because you don't give a rat's ass whether the things you say about me are true. You are acting unethically toward me. You appear to be doing it because I'm an unbeliever so I'm not entitled to moral consideration. What more than this does it take to make an outgroup?

Which ideological leanings do you think I have that you think will inevitably lead exactly where Germany went? My lack of susceptibility to fashionable unscientific memes? My hostility to censorship? My radical conception that civil rights are for everyone? Or are you talking about some ideological leaning you just made up and imputed to me because you don't like me?

There's nothing knee jerk about it. It would do you good to be able to identify those tendencies in your own thinking so you don't end up having your animal brain prejudices hijacked by con artists and autocrats. I did it. It's not hard.

If your animal brain prejudices had not been hijacked by con artists and autocrats you would not libel your opponents.

And that's why I ask again, how would you recognize someone who doesn't think in terms of us vs. them, in-group/out-group?

Asked and answered.

 

[Elixir]

There's not much you can do about it if someone's identity is totally wrapped up in being the "outgroup" of some entity or group (real or imagined).

 

[Angry Floof]

For the nth time, YOU ARE NOT MY OUTGROUP.

Floof, that's about as convincing as "I'm not antisemitic; one of my best friends is a Jew." Over and over you treat unbelievers in your faith as not entitled to moral consideration.

How would you recognize someone who actually doesn't think like that?

If you did this to everyone it would look different; but you don't come off as a sociopath. You come off as one of the most blindly tribalistic posters in the forum.

I make you uncomfortable, that's all. I call out right wing mentality and all its Nazi pitfalls. Of course you would see me as just as tribalistic as you are. What framework do you have in your own mind that would allow you to recognize someone who is not tribalistic?

(Hint: this is rhetoric. You don't have such a framework.)

You are Uncle Bomb at the Thanksgiving table. I would call him out for his vile and backward views, too, and still not kick him out of the family, still care about whether his surgery went well, or whatever.

Am I? Okay, tell me this. Would you casually tell your family at the Thanksgiving table that Uncle Bob's wife, whom you've never met and don't know anything about, is a white supremacist?

Well, that depends. What has she said and done to make me think she's a white supremacist? But if she says and does things that white supremacists say and do, well, if it walks like a duck. If I don't know anything she's said or done, I would not assume. The world is full of women married to bigots but who are not bigots themselves.

The way white supremacists think is repugnant to me, and I would assume to Uncle Bomb's wife as well if she's not a white supremacist. If someone's not a white supremacist or not on the fringe of white supremacy pretending not to be, they would not be comfortable pretending to be one at the Thanksgiving table.

How is it possible that you don't know what is repugnant about white supremacy and how the actions of white supremacists reflect right wing mentality and ideology? Is this really new information for you or just information you can't deal with?

Try to be a better human being, Uncle Bomb.

I wouldn't punish him and I'm not punishing you. Get a grip.

No, you just announce, with zero reason to believe it's true, that I have vile and backward views. And you do this to make me as uncomfortable as possible doing so in order to help protect vulnerable groups. I don't know what word your idiolect uses for that sort of behavior, but in English, that's called punishing people.

But how would you recognize someone who is not operating under us vs. them tribalism? How do you tell the difference between someone who is actually trying to punish you and someone who calls out the nature of right wing mentality and all its underlying fear and prejudice and hate mongered rage on an internet discussion board?

I don't think you can.

The whole "not-our-ideology-equals-enemy" is YOUR thing, not mine.

Wanting to be the hero of your own narrative enough to self-delude does not magically stop what you do from amounting to treating infidels as enemies.

How would you recognize someone who doesn't operate under such superficial motivations?

How would you know if you yourself are falling into those cognitive pitfalls that lead to projection?

How would you tell if your own in-group was being manipulated by a fascist con artist?

And you're damn right that people of humane values and principles will absolutely make you uncomfortable when you express inhumane views. I know that right wing minds tend to think of liberals and leftists and progressives as weak, but we are anything but. But that's not punishing you, either.

You seem to have mistaken what you're doing for shaming. It isn't. Shaming is drawing attention to someone's shameful behavior -- i.e., it's what I'm doing to you. What you've done to me and to Metaphor and others isn't shaming. Trumping up false charges against someone with reckless disregard for the truth isn't shaming; it's just libel.

Oh, no. Shaming is also good for shaming inhumane principles and values, or at best, humane principles take a back seat to other things like party and believing whatever you're being fed by Fox Newstainment and owning teh libz. Shaming is for corrupt powers and the people who support corrupt powers while telling themselves they are liberal.

No conservative church or right wing movement authority figure will ever teach their followers how to protect themselves from people who do use shame to manipulate them. They're not going to talk at all about how easy it is to shame any human being, especially a little ones, into believing they really are guilty when there is absolutely no reason for them to be ashamed, and they're certainly not going to teach them how to identify such manipulations.

They won't teach it because they need to use it to manipulate people. I don't use shame as a weapon against the most vulnerable in society, or kids, or people who are sick or addicted or ignorant. Just you, Uncle Bomb.

I'm not a right wing mind. I'm a liberal. You have no rational grounds for thinking I'm a right-winger; it's just that from a left-wing authoritarian perspective ordinary moderate people look right-wing. And I have never thought of leftists and progressives as weak -- as you say, you're anything but; it's why I focus most of my efforts here on refuting the new aggressive rising religion instead of the old tired dying-out religion. You guys are powerful, and you use your power to punish your enemies. In this country that means you libel them in order to convince others to do them social and economic harm. In countries like Australia, where you guys have even more power to punish them because legal free speech protections are inadequate, you prosecute them. And if you think for a minute that you personally wouldn't shut your opponents up by force if you were authorized to, then you appear not to have been reading your own posts.

No, I wouldn't. Do you know what that looks like when autocrats try to simply shut their opponents up by force? Were you around during Trump's presidency? That's almost exclusively a right wing tendency!

And it's also YOUR ideological leanings that given the right conditions will inevitably lead exactly where Germany went.

The reason you say that about me even though you haven't got the slightest rational basis for thinking it's true is because you don't give a rat's ass whether the things you say about me are true. You are acting unethically toward me. You appear to be doing it because I'm an unbeliever so I'm not entitled to moral consideration. What more than this does it take to make an outgroup?

No, I do it because you're wacky Uncle Bomb yelling about censorship and getting hostile because of all the liberals around him who are not censoring him.

Which ideological leanings do you think I have that you think will inevitably lead exactly where Germany went? My lack of susceptibility to fashionable unscientific memes? My hostility to censorship? My radical conception that civil rights are for everyone? Or are you talking about some ideological leaning you just made up and imputed to me because you don't like me?

Pfffth. "Censorship."

Anyway, no, not made up. Have you read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer? I've posted this link many times. His work follows many decades of work in researching fascism, authoritarianism, dictators, autocrats, etc. You should read it. It's a free ebook, and it's research, not opinion.

There's nothing knee jerk about it. It would do you good to be able to identify those tendencies in your own thinking so you don't end up having your animal brain prejudices hijacked by con artists and autocrats. I did it. It's not hard.

If your animal brain prejudices had not been hijacked by con artists and autocrats you would not libel your opponents.

I'm calling out people for their dumb and inhumane views. They're not "opponents." Why do you feel like this is a competition of some kind?

And that's why I ask again, how would you recognize someone who doesn't think in terms of us vs. them, in-group/out-group?

Asked and answered.

Not at all answered. But I already knew that would be the case.

There's not much you can do about it if someone's identity is totally wrapped up in being the "outgroup" of some entity or group (real or imagined).

I'm happy to be in one or more of the many and varied groups and identities that right wingers irrationally hate.

 

[Elixir]

There's not much you can do about it if someone's identity is totally wrapped up in being the "outgroup" of some entity or group (real or imagined).

I'm happy to be in one or more of the many and varied groups and identities that right wingers irrationally hate.

Sure, most reasonable people who have a certain level of empathy feel the same contempt for right wing fascism. I take no pride or comfort in being in right wingers’ “outgroup”, nor do I feel a need to automatically ostracize people who hold conservative (old meaning) views.
It is sad that you can write a long eloquent post like above, and it’s salient points will be ignored. All you get is fancied up versions of “nuh-unh”, decorated with cleverly implied ad hominem insults. But that’s the stock in trade of the ‘Murkin right.

 

[TomC]

It is sad that you can write a long eloquent post like above, and it’s salient points will be ignored. All you get is fancied up versions of “nuh-unh”, decorated with cleverly implied ad hominem insults. But that’s the stock in trade of the ‘Murkin right.

That is hardly the sole purview of the right. The leftists are little different.

Quite the contrary, in my experience.
Depends mostly on which tribe is dominant in any given place. Here on IIDB it's the leftist.
Tom