LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[CivilDiscourse]

Unfortunately, the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents idiots realizing they're idiots. The intelligence needed to make an accurate assessment of their own intelligence, is precisely the same intelligence they are lacking.

Ah, "Dunning-Kruger"...Similar to "Dog Whistles" used to create accusations from which the accused cannot defend themselves against, because the defense itself feeds into the narrative of the accusation.

With Dog Whistles, any protestation that what was said wasn't racist is pre-nullified by the trope of the dog whistle claim that it's supposed to sound non-racist, and only picked up by those who know what to look for.

With D-K, any protestation of actual skill is pre-nullified by the claim that the person is so unskilled that they can't judge their own skill, therefore, their claims of skill can be ignored.

[Roy]

XXY and XXXY are still male.

But what about YYY?

[Roy]

I'm getting the impression that the "LGBTQ ideology" being objected to is no more than

1) Homosexuals exist
2) Transgender people exist
3) Homosexuals and transgender people should be allowed to live.

It's not, but thanks for playing.

You're reinforcing that impression.

[seer]

Unfortunately, the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents idiots realizing they're idiots. The intelligence needed to make an accurate assessment of their own intelligence, is precisely the same intelligence they are lacking.

You need to stop projecting Star..

[Diogenes]

You are again adding (again) to what I said. So. Let’s just do a simple scenario:
1. The military creates a test designed to determine if the person taking it has the skills/capabilities to serve in a combat position. There is ONE test, and it is as rigorous as necessary to ensure the person taking it can successfully serve in that role.
2. A male takes it and passes it with flying colors.
3. A female takes it and passes it with flying colors.
QUESTION: Do you allow both to serve?

As you like fallacies, oversimplification. A quick search yields.

Women appear to have greater vulnerability to PTSD and depression at all levels of combat exposure, and also report lower levels of unit cohesion and self-efficacy

Gender Differences in Post-deployment Adjustment of Air Force Personnel: The Role of Wartime Experiences, Unit Cohesion, and Self-efficacy

https://academic.oup.com/milmed/arti...2/e229/5145878

That aside, Assuming women could meet a unified standard that wasn't adjusted to be easier for women (despite evidence to the contrary), there are other reasons to exclude them from certain roles. Given the state of modern warfare, women being in the Army is less objectionable. More specialized forces like the Marines, Rangers, Seals, submariners, etc, are a hard pass.

You keep thinking of sex as a class and intentionally divorcing it from a host of biological and psycho-social realities. The objection is not to a class or merely being a woman.

[Starlight]

With D-K, any protestation of actual skill is pre-nullified by the claim that the person is so unskilled that they can't judge their own skill, therefore, their claims of skill can be ignored.

Not really true, as testing in the course of education, or IQ tests, can externally judge intelligence.

If there existed no external judges of intelligence in the world, and if we were all entirely reliant on our own ability to judge ourselves, then the circularity you point to would be a serious problem.

[CivilDiscourse]

Not really true, as testing in the course of education, or IQ tests, can externally judge intelligence.

If there existed no external judges of intelligence in the world, and if we were all entirely reliant on our own ability to judge ourselves, then the circularity you point to would be a serious problem.

And how frequently are those going to be able to be used in forums like this where you threw the insult out?

[Diogenes]

As a point, Trump isn't a fascist. Anyone who has passingly read The Doctrine Of Fascism (written by Giovanni Gentile) would know this. Fascism is a Hegelian collectivist philosophy (as is Communism). Fascism is anti-indivualisitc which is becoming the position of the Left, especially in a cultural sense. Fascism is also pro-trade union within the orbit of the State, as with everything else.

[Sparko]

Of course I would…on secular grounds. My response would be to try to convince society to be different so that those are no longer the mores of society, as we have been doing (successfully) for some time. If I could not, then I hope I would have the integrity to accept that, in a democracy, I will not always get my way. Until I can sway society, I would find another way to teach my children, or teach them that the school and society are wrong, or simply find a new society.

On secular grounds? LOL. So you think it is wrong to teach certain morals in school. Morals that you don't agree with. These people are doing the same thing. My position is schools should not be teaching morals such as sexual orientation, or specific political views. That is not their purview.

[eider]

Unfortunately, the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents idiots realizing they're idiots. The intelligence needed to make an accurate assessment of their own intelligence, is precisely the same intelligence they are lacking.

There must be some similar kind of effect on the immoral!

[Starlight]

As a point, Trump isn't a fascist.

I do think that's generally a fair position, if not for the reasons you go on to cite in your post. Looking at some of the lists of characteristics of fascism online in various places, Trump tends to meet fewer than half the characteristics.

I think Trump is more accurately characterised as an ego-centric wannabe-dictator. Fascism is an ideology, and that Trump doesn't have much interest in ideologies because he is generally too stupid, lazy, and selfish to hold any ideology. To the extent that he bumbles into fascist-adjacent ideas, it's far more out of selfishness and a wish to be a strongman, than it is out of ideology.

[carpedm9587]

Ah, "Dunning-Kruger"...Similar to "Dog Whistles" used to create accusations from which the accused cannot defend themselves against, because the defense itself feeds into the narrative of the accusation.

With Dog Whistles, any protestation that what was said wasn't racist is pre-nullified by the trope of the dog whistle claim that it's supposed to sound non-racist, and only picked up by those who know what to look for.

With D-K, any protestation of actual skill is pre-nullified by the claim that the person is so unskilled that they can't judge their own skill, therefore, their claims of skill can be ignored.

So what does one say when these things are actually occurring? How do you call them out?

[CivilDiscourse]

So what does one say when these things are actually occurring? How do you call them out?

Find a way that doesn't rely on reading tea leaves.

[Diogenes]

I do think that's generally a fair position, if not for the reasons you go on to cite in your post. Looking at some of the lists of characteristics of fascism online in various places, Trump tends to meet fewer than half the characteristics.

I think Trump is more accurately characterised as an ego-centric wannabe-dictator. Fascism is an ideology, and that Trump doesn't have much interest in ideologies because he is generally too stupid, lazy, and selfish to hold any ideology. To the extent that he bumbles into fascist-adjacent ideas, it's far more out of selfishness and a wish to be a strongman, than it is out of ideology.

How is Trump bumbling into anything that is "fascist-adjacent (with specific examples from any of the works by Giovanni Gentile)?


As for "wannabe-dictator", that would be Rep Jayapal.

[carpedm9587]

As you like fallacies, oversimplification. A quick search yields.

Women appear to have greater vulnerability to PTSD and depression at all levels of combat exposure, and also report lower levels of unit cohesion and self-efficacy

Gender Differences in Post-deployment Adjustment of Air Force Personnel: The Role of Wartime Experiences, Unit Cohesion, and Self-efficacy

https://academic.oup.com/milmed/arti...2/e229/5145878

That aside, Assuming women could meet a unified standard that wasn't adjusted to be easier for women (despite evidence to the contrary), there are other reasons to exclude them from certain roles. Given the state of modern warfare, women being in the Army is less objectionable. More specialized forces like the Marines, Rangers, Seals, submariners, etc, are a hard pass.

You keep thinking of sex as a class and intentionally divorcing it from a host of biological and psycho-social realities. The objection is not to a class or merely being a woman.

I notice that you did not answer the question. I'll ask it again:

It's a simple scenario:

1. The military creates a test designed to determine if the person taking it has the skills/capabilities to serve in a combat position. There is ONE test, and it is as rigorous as necessary to ensure the person taking it can successfully serve in that role.

2. A male takes it and passes it with flying colors.

3. A female takes it and passes it with flying colors.

QUESTION: Do you allow both to serve?

Or we can ask it another way:

1. The military creates a test designed to determine if the person taking it has the skills/capabilities to serve in a combat position. There is ONE test, and it is as rigorous as necessary to ensure the person taking it can successfully serve in that role.

2. You are given the test results of a candidate who passed the test with flying colors.

Does the sex of the person taking it need to be known in order to make an admit/deny decision?