The Good Post Gallery

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

sad but true

I think the one thing I learned from these threads is how deeply ingrained the desire and sense of being right is here.  The Atlas forum is overall a self satisfied bunch. The culture is frequently bereft of any sort of consensus building or common ground in arguments these days. This I would think is a by product of being a rather homogeneous male bastion.  And I think of lot of this is based on class even more than gender.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Until now I've watched this from the sidelines but I think I've collected my thoughts enough at this point to express my full opinion. First off, I think almost everyone on both sides have been making a lot of unverifiable assumptions and implications, which is a bit silly.

Memphis doesn't understand transgenderism. Most Americans don't. My browser's spellchecker doesn't even understand that it's a word, because it placed a squiggly red line underneath it. It's a relatively new concept that seems "weird" for many people because it strongly contradicts how they were socialized, and that's not something someone can always change at-will. It's not something that one can even comprehend changing, even. Do I think Memphis's views are correct? No. Does the simple fact that he holds them justify, to any extent, the outrage against him? I don't really think so.

I also saw a few sexist comments Memphis made that I don't agree with, yeah, but that doesn't call for a witch hunt either. The viewpoint he's describing is very common among men, from my own observations. It's not something most men would articulate in person, and certainly not in public, but it's there. I'm not surprised by this latent misogyny especially because Memphis is a fellow Tulane alum. Maybe other colleges are the same, I don't know, but this attitude was so ubiquitous among both men and women on campus that even I, for a while, began to assume that it's just a part of how people usually are.

So I disagree with him, but I understand where he's coming from. I think he should at least get credit for being able to articulate his beliefs on gender, though, because it demonstrates he has the self-awareness to understand his opinion on an issue that, for most men, is rarely more than an unchangeable subconscious assumption. I can't decide if that makes it better or worse. One on hand, he's shown the potential for acceptance. On the other, it kinda reminds me of this guy. The rape stuff was really bad, too, but I'm not sure if he fully realized the implications of what he was saying (if so that's really horrible, but if not, the instant abrasive reaction didn't really help him see flaw in his reasoning).

I suppose that displaying the pictures was also in bad taste- not because he's showing them, but because he's showing them to the Atlas Forum. Honestly, assuming he's tagged in those pictures then anyone who is memphis's friend would be able to see those people anyway. Similarly, there's quite a few of you on my friends list, who can see pictures of girls I know, but that doesn't mean I did anything wrong. The bad part is really the context, posting images of women while proving you're not sexist. And that really highlights what's been the biggest source of outrage here: Memphis is really bad about putting his foot in his mouth.

But anyway, a question for Nathan et al: is this how you normally respond to people who refer to trans people negatively? I really hope not, because this is a horrible bandwagon that would only be justifiable if he was, like, a literal Nazi. Someone even implied that he wanted to kill off everyone with a blue avatar earlier! Honestly, what the [Inks]? That's insane.

And even if you do believe such behavior is justified, it's still utterly ridiculous. If you think he's in the wrong then educate him, tell him your story, try to get him to understand what it's like to be in your shoes. People such as memphis, you can't expect them to accept and understand transgenderism through direct pressure or through threat of exile from the public sphere via marginalizing their views. You can't expect them to have an epiphany overnight. Social acceptance is something that grows with time, within individuals as well as society at large. You transgendered folks are fighting against a very extensive history of cisnormate hegemony, and attitudes like that don't change overnight - just look at how difficult of a time homosexuality is still having after all these years.

I'm not intending to single anyone out here, and I fully acknowledge that what I'm about to say is a generalization and borderline stereotypical. But honestly, as my lesbian roommates would say, "y'all are acting so trans," and I know many others of various genders and orientations who would agree with that sentiment. If you're not aware of transgenderism's most common stereotypes, including (especially?) from the groups you share an acronym with: transgendereds are often considered to be bombastic and self-righteous to the extreme, who view pretentiously themselves as superior and enlightened compared to everyone else, who view the world in a with-us-or-against-us mentality, and who often play the victim card at the first chance. I do not possess this belief myself; I would never presume to judge an entire group of people in such broad strokes, especially of such a negative tone. However, I hear this view expressed from enough people to know it is widespread and not isolated to my own greater peer group. I've even heard serious suggestions from three unrelated people that "LGB should kick out T" because they consider the above stereotypes to be true and believe the entire movement is being held back as a result.

This is the first time I've read, firsthand, transgenderism defended against someone who denied its status as a legitimate thing. It's been vicious. Needlessly vicious. And it instantly brought to mind all the associated stereotypes. Maybe none of you guys are normally like this, and I'm probably horrible for bringing this up anyway but I just want to help. I do support you guys. I do think Memphis was wrong. But the outrage against him was ridiculous. I know nine people who would be allies of the transgendered movement but for the fact that its members drove them off for various reasons. I'm pretty sure you guys lost several potential allies here. I know I have no right to tell anyone what they should do, but I believe it would be much preferable if you didn't match hostility with hostility. I didn't read every post of every thread but I didn't see anyone try to explain on a personal level their "story" of transexuality to memphis, it was just insults, hostile banter, and the treatment of an emotional and personal issue as if it was something quantifiable. Maybe I shouldn't be making this into a bigger issue, I'm just trying to explain that, I don't know, even isolated incidents can justify stereotypes for life. On some level, even, I'm pretty sure I had to write this all out because that allowed me to think about it consciously, and had I not done so I probably would have taken this incident and used it as the rationalization to get on board with my trans-hating roomies.

Eh, this entire huge post will probably make both sides hate me because I'm trying to define where I stand on complicated issues and be helpful in a way that probably makes me sound like a douche. But really, even if this request is naive, hopeless, and cliche, I ask of both parties involved here: can't we all just accept each other and get along?

[Napoleon]

Uh, probably never? That's always been a right-wing attack on working class voters.

Always? Nope. Ronald "Welfare Queen" Reagan invented it in the 1960s, and the effectiveness this line of attack in great part explains the Reactionary Right's success at undermining the New Deal's legacy in the past 40 years.

And factory tycoons during the Industrial Revolution blamed the working class for their profits being lower than desired.  The food stamps and welfare checks of today were the 8 hour work day and child labor laws in the past. 

You're both kind of right.  Lief is generally correct.  Antonio is specifically correct. 

And no... the right wing puppet masters will never drop it because it is their bread-and-butter to scare those who ignorantly think they can be like them (suburban whites and dumbs) into thinking those who understand they can never be like them, just wanting to get by (the working class, the working poor, minorities, first-generation immigrants, etc.) are lazy, inherently inferior, and out there to leach off everybody else.  Fear is and will always be the proper tool for any political entity that is selling their constituency a hot, steaming, self-serving plate of BS. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

All right, here's a serious one.

When I was in grade 11 (which I believe was 2009), a girl in our circle of friends died as a result of an epilepsy event. I guess it would have been different at school if a bad student had passed away or if know one knew who the person was, but this girl was honestly the nicest person in the world. She treated everyone with warmth, she had the greatest smile, and everyone knew her. She wasn't some bimbo whore popular chick—she was honestly just the nicest person.

So it was extremely tough. I remember the day it happened: I got called out of class thirty minutes before school was set to finish, and I was told to bring all my stuff with me. Walking to the office, I knew something was up. I thought maybe my grandpa had died or something. So, I confess I was very relieved when I saw that all my friends were sitting around a table waiting in the guidance office too. We were just going to get in trouble about something, I thought. Not so. We were told that our friend died. It was devastating.

So in honour of her and out of respect for other people with epilepsy, everyone wore purple to school in the days following her death. I went out and bought a purple shirt because I, being one of the first people who was told, didn't want to seem like I didn't care. I cared.

Unfortunately, these days became pretty political, because what you saw was people trying to one-up each other with "how much they cared." Her real friends decided to start an epilepsy drive, but then other people jumped on it and eventually took over. These people who were hardly even friends with her organized school buses to her funeral. These people charmed her parents with their messages of respect and their fundraising. So what happened was that one emo douche guy who had always been so into his image managed to weasel his way into the "honour guard" at this girl's funeral... at the expense of some of her real friends. Basically, all this stuff really made me feel uneasy. This girl was my friend, and I was very sad... but suddenly I was made to feel "not sad enough."

I realize I've gone on a bit, but I think it's important to explain the context. What you should also know is that a facebook group was set up for people to post their words of comfort.

Here's the personal confession: I despise this facebook group. Every year on the anniversary of her death and on her birthday, dozens of people still post superficial messages to this girl (who never even had facebook in the first place). "Aimee, keep dancing in the sky." Garbage like that. And, of course, when one person posts to the group, everyone gets a notification, so they all rush to do it too. And too me, I just think it's disgusting, because you can tell that everyone is doing it because they think they have to and because they want to look good. I hate it. And it's probably unfair of me, because it's quite possible I'm reading into it too much. But everytime these people post in that group, I judge them. It's been four years. What happened to "moving on?"

[courts]

So, are people not encouraged to point out the obvious any more then?  I mean, we've seen what happens whenever people do that for religious folk and so on, and I guess this is what got memphis his personal lynch mob to start with.  But are we all now to pretend Santa is real just to keep the delusional happy?

I'm sure you know better than this Joe. Don't be an idiot.

Actually, the fact that Joe is content to write off anybody who subscribes to notions that don't fit into a strict 'A=A' rationalist Wittgensteinian episteme as 'delusional' and leave it at that is one that he's demonstrated many times.

Haha, what?  Pretentious much?

You know, for someone who rightfully hates it when people try to psychoanalyze him around here, you're certainly happy to dish it out.  What's more, you complain when people criticize your old-fashioned religious beliefs, and you complain when people don't understand your talk about 'cis-genderism'.  It's like one minute you're preaching from the pulpit at some exceedingly dull church; the next you're a giving a Womens' Studies lecture at Berkeley.

-----

The true irony in all this is that memphis and virtually everybody trying to defend him from the lynch mob are all supporters of gay rights.  The actual bigots have remained silent this entire time.  C'est la vie.

[Napoleon]

So, are people not encouraged to point out the obvious any more then?  I mean, we've seen what happens whenever people do that for religious folk and so on, and I guess this is what got memphis his personal lynch mob to start with.  But are we all now to pretend Santa is real just to keep the delusional happy?

I'm sure you know better than this Joe. Don't be an idiot.

Actually, the fact that Joe is content to write off anybody who subscribes to notions that don't fit into a strict 'A=A' rationalist Wittgensteinian episteme as 'delusional' and leave it at that is one that he's demonstrated many times.

Haha, what?  Pretentious much?

I don't understand what's pretentious about using philosophical language that I understand perfectly well and that you should too if you want to share your opinions on other people being 'delusional', unless you're one of those people who characterize as pretentious any choice of language that distinguishes your interlocutor from Dean Koontz, which you really don't seem to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not trying to 'psychoanalyze' you or speculate on your motivations. This is a thing that you do. Similarly, you could say--well, what you say in the next sentence--and you're not trying to 'psychoanlayze' me; you're stating a fact about my personality of which you don't seem to approve.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is correct. I'm easily frustrated, easily disappointed, and overly sensitive, and I expect a high degree of understanding or at least willingness to use Google. I would, however, submit that I have less of a problem when people criticize my old-fashioned religious beliefs or don't understand other people's talk about 'cis-genderism' (which isn't a way of using this word I've ever seen before, and which I didn't actually introduce to this conversation, if you noticed) without wallowing in unearned self-regard about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you honestly think I consider this an insult?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That wasn't a good post. None of my posts are good.

[Antonio the Sixth]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

Messing up one philosophical reference does not stain your entire posting history...

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

Messing up one philosophical reference does not stain your entire posting history...

Absolutely.  Don't sell yourself short, Nathan.  I envy your advanced understanding of these things.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I mean, I made a really stupid blunder about a major philosopher while commenting on what I consider is another poster's comparably stupid habitual epistemological category error, and I suppose you could argue that that makes it better, but you could also argue that that makes it worse. Maybe one of these days somebody will make an offhanded reference to a position that they mistakenly attribute to Simone Weil or something.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean, I made a really stupid blunder about a major philosopher while commenting on what I consider is another poster's comparably stupid habitual epistemological category error, and I suppose you could argue that that makes it better, but you could also argue that that makes it worse. Maybe one of these days somebody will make an offhanded reference to a position that they mistakenly attribute to Simone Weil or something.

You are the sole judge with regard to how serious you think the incident in question was. However, I again do not see how this affects the value of all your posts, which I am sure most of the forum would agree are generally excellent.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To be honest, I'd brush it off more or less entirely if I hadn't read, and sat through a friend's presentation on, Philosophical Investigations relatively recently.

[afleitch]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

So you’re not fussed about the fact you insulted someone whose actually a quite a good and quite a considerate poster, just that you messed up your insult. You have interesting priorities

[Joe Republic]

I'm so confused about all this, I'm no longer sure that I was the poster being insulted.

[Gustaf]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

So you’re not fussed about the fact you insulted someone whose actually a quite a good and quite a considerate poster, just that you messed up your insult. You have interesting priorities

Even a supporter of Memphis can't really claim that he's considerate. Even I wouldn't claim that title for myself.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

So you’re not fussed about the fact you insulted someone whose actually a quite a good and quite a considerate poster, just that you messed up your insult. You have interesting priorities

I know you disagree with and are disappointed in me on this, and I'm sorry that's the case (insofar as that kind of apology is ever really worth much), but whether or not Joe is a good poster on other grounds and in other areas (and he is; a very good one), I don't actually think the substance of my observation was either inappropriate or incorrect. I suppose I am sorry for couching it as an insult but I'm not sure how else I really could have and maintained the desired effect.

Gustaf, the post under discussion was one directed at Joe, not memphis.

[Gustaf]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

So you’re not fussed about the fact you insulted someone whose actually a quite a good and quite a considerate poster, just that you messed up your insult. You have interesting priorities

I know you disagree with and are disappointed in me on this, and I'm sorry that's the case (insofar as that kind of apology is ever really worth much), but whether or not Joe is a good poster on other grounds and in other areas (and he is; a very good one), I don't actually think the substance of my observation was either inappropriate or incorrect. I suppose I am sorry for couching it as an insult but I'm not sure how else I really could have and maintained the desired effect.

Gustaf, the post under discussion was one directed at Joe, not memphis.

Oh. Well, my point still stands. If Joe is considerate I think I can claim to be as well.

(and that's not an insult - I don't think being nice to bad people on the internet is that much of a virtue)

[Insula Dei]

But aren't you nice to bad people in real life on a daily basis?

[afleitch]

Consider this my last word on the Memphis matter - something that I'd like to go for everyone, not just the man in question:

The true irony in all this is that memphis and virtually everybody trying to defend him from the lynch mob are all supporters of gay rights.  The actual bigots have remained silent this entire time.  C'est la vie.

Being decent to people who are different than you is better evidence of not being a bigot than is supporting gay rights.

You’re kind of missing the point and perhaps you can be forgiven for it for being pretty new here. What Joe was saying is that those who have been attacked for defending Memphis from attacks (which is different from defending what he says) are pro gay (for which read LGBT) rights. Joe certainly is. Now what people forget is that there are people who hold outdated of misplaced opinions on transgendered individuals. They just haven’t posted on this matter. There was a topic late last year about a third grade transgender who was now able to go to school as a girl.

Here are some of the replies;

Oh, New Hampshire, one of America's greatest states, I weep for your downfall.

How is a third grader deciding or finding out where and what they are sexually? I mean, there were girls that got "married" in 5th grade, had some stupid play ceremony in class or something like that, and they're not lesbians. So how is a third grader deciding that they want to identify as a woman the rest of their life? And how creepy and weird does this get when someone identifying as a different gender has to decide which locker room to change in?

Those were fairly mild;

Before the post was edited, Obamanation said ; ‘How did it get their parents to pay for the sex change? (emphasis added)

One poster, Pingvin, who has thankfully slithered away said, before his post was deleted, ‘Disgusting, just disgusting’

Compare to what Memphis said;

I don't really "get" the whole trans thing, but I don't see the big deal if one 3rd grader out of the millions out there feels the need to dress in the style that society has arbitrarily assigned to females. Seems like most kids today just wear pants and polos anyway. That's the school dress code here. I'm much more concerned about real problems like disease, hunger, and abuse.

He’s just someone trying to understand something that’s alien to him. So people piling on to him calling him a 'transphobe' should think just a little and perhaps give the man the benefit of the doubt. I've had to explain my sexuality for the past 14 years to people who just don't get it but want to understand it; you have to have patience. Count your blessings that the really ignorant posters didn’t join in the conversation this week.

[Gustaf]

But aren't you nice to bad people in real life on a daily basis?

Yes, but I'm not convinced that is a virtue.

[Lambsbread]

Seriously, Nathan, I want to be real for a second. And I'm speaking only on my own behalf.

I know for a fact that, despite my already low level of intelligence, I would be far stupider had I never read your posts. You are most certainly one of the most intelligent and likable people on this forum. You provide insight into certain topics that I never could have imagined were possible, considering I only think in black and white. You are a very valuable poster and the forum is better because of you.

[Mechaman]

Don't really want to drag this conversation longer, but Gustaf makes a really good point that needs to be stressed:

Ok, I read the longer posts on the last page now. So I should comment.

I don't consider what Sbane said to be particularly offensive. Nor do I necessarily disagree.

There seem to be 3 important points of rebuttal coming from Memphis or people supporting him.

1. Men and women display inherent differences

There are a couple of things to say on this. Everyone agrees men and women behave differently, on average. That's pretty clear. The question is to what extent this depends on biology. This is an open question. The short answer is that we don't know for sure. What we do know is that social norms play a big part - this is evident in part due to changing gender roles throughout history and across the globe. But also in how peoples' behaviour in general is clearly very variant with culture. Thus, the idea that society is currently going too far in forcing gender equality onto natural differences is quite dubious. If one wants to argue this you need to indicate awareness of this other stuff to be taken seriously.

Secondly, and this is more important, even if there are such differences how should society treat them? If women are on average less suited to be engineers there will still be plenty of excellent female engineers. Constantly pushing the narrative of how women are worse engineers will do these women a great disservice.

To give a random example. If I'm making a movie about some criminal I could say that the criminal should definitely be black because blacks are so overrepresented in crime. But many of us might consider such an attitude to be problematic, precisely because it leads to people crossing the street when they see a young black male on the same side. Social stigmas matter, which leads to the next point.

2. Memphis has previously claimed that social norms and expectations wouldn't affect any normal person and that the claim that women might be held back by such things is the same as calling women weak and fragile. The same apparently goes for the idea that women shouldn't be subjected to constant sexual advances.

This is, basically, wrong. It shows a very shallow understanding of human society and psychology. People are very much affected by how society expects them to act and such things constitute major obstacles to people. People report posts on this forum because they're offended. People kill themselves over bullying. Examples abound of this sort of thing.

What makes this particularly offensive, at least to me, is the sheer nerve to say this from a privileged position. Most of us here are men. White men, at that. And in spite of the jokes I think the majority is also straight.

As such we don't have to live with this kind of stuff. Of course, you can have plenty of other problems, be it poverty or depression or whatnot. But the current topic, this thing, you don't have to live with. The condescension of informing others that they shouldn't whine about a problem you will never have to face yourself is deeply offensive. I'm all for arguing against victimization, but you need to be sensitive about it if you don't want to come off as a bigoted asshole.

3. This leads nicely into the last line of rebuttal, which goes something like "those who disagree that women can be sexually harassed and aren't fit for work are probably total pussies who like to dress in mens' clothing and will never get laid"

(ok, that was nasty hyperbole, but you know what I mean)

First of all, this is not true. At all. Me and most of my good friends get laid plenty and would never peddle this type of misogynist BS.

But more importantly there is so much wrong with this imagery. Invoking the concept of the 'real man' as an ideal to follow is highly oppressive, denying people the right to form their own identities. It promotes the idea that I have to act a certain way due to my gender. It is at the end of the day highly moralizing. It also indicates bigotry towards people who don't conform to stereotypes. Gay men is an obvious example of this but it really is about anyone.

Beyond that it is disturbing because it indicates that I could only care about women if I'm basically a woman myself. This goes against empathy and universalist values.

Finally, and this really needs to be stressed for people to get this context. This kind of stuff drives people to suicide. Which is why it isn't just a bit of a joke or something we should shrug off because you agree with Memphis on Obamacare or something. I'm not affected by it. I'm a white, rich, straight man. But as much of an asshole as I am I do have some empathy. And I know plenty of people have a damn hard time. And I'm willing to let them decide what makes their life a bit easier and not tell them they're men in women's clothing or chicks with dicks just because it's the kind of thing other straight men may laugh at in the pub.

[tik 🪀✨]

That was an excellent post indeed. I am grateful someone around here has the ability to tackle all of the points and make it fit together, and I hope that it helps mark the end of all of this.. stuff.