Wu undermines the credibility of TFP. From SalI Grover:
- “If you think that women have penises, I won’t believe a single word you say about anything else. Because if you will lie about something so obvious, I will assume you lie about everything.”
Helen Joyce also describes how policies of whole organizations become impacted by fealty to gender ideology by just a few. We can see it already at TFP. Nellie wrote on Friday that there wasn’t any other reason besides a desire to “shame” transgender people for the EO to require federally-issued IDs utilize the immutable categorization of biological sex. Really? The rationale is right in the very first paragraph. “The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.”
There are obviously very sound practical and principled reasons why the EO is good policy, but according to TFP none of those are valid - you have seen into the administration’s soul and concluded they’re mean and trying to shame people. See how quickly trying to find some “middle ground” on gender ideology leads to a dissolution of respect for truth and material reality? “Because if you will lie about something so obvious, I will assume you lie about everything.”
Batya you have gone full Woke Right, and full (pro-Trump) TDS. I was raised far-right conservative, and naturally became moderate in college, until pressure from those around me combined with the 2016 election radicalized me to slip and slide all the way to the far-left. I've been on both extremes long before any of the insulated, lifelong liberals here started talking about the "Vibe Shift" or how maybe conservatives have some fair points. I can guarantee that have spent much more time being a conservative than you have, Batya. When I "got clean" from political extremism a few years ago, I swore I would never let myself feel pressured to "just pick a side," ever again- as long as those sides remained extremist (which I feel they still are).
I'm over-the-moon happy about Trump's executive order protecting women's civil rights from gender identity ideology, I'm looking forward to a crackdown on illegal immigration, and I hope brutal tariffs and a hard stance on China brings manufacturing back to the US. And I didn't vote for Trump, because many of his policies and behaviors violate my core values and morals. I also work in the arts, and Republican financial policies often hurt the arts. I also didn't vote for Kamala Harris, for similar reasons as why I didn't vote for Trump. I was 100% certain Trump would win by a lot (I was also certain Trump would win in 2016- none of this was even slightly hard to predict if you know and speak to conservative people), and I felt ambivalent about it. Because I strongly support one half of his policies and actions, and profoundly disagree with the other half.
Everyone from both sides told me to plug my nose and swallow the bullshit. Well, regardless of what side you're on, if you voted for either major party, you just ate shit. Voting for either of these two political extremists could be described as the cowardly act. Refusing to flush my hard-won political values (of moderation and nuance before all else) down the drain felt like a form of conscientious objection against the two corporations (the Democratic Party and the Republican Party) that currently have our country in a stranglehold of manufactured political extremism. Some people feel like conscientious objection is always morally reprehensible. I, being a person capable of nuanced thinking, empathy, and an understanding that others have different experiences than I do and therefore will make different choices than me, feel at peace with my decision.
To get super personal, I have had intensive, brutal exposure treatment for severe OCD. One of the hallmarks and wellsprings of this horrible disorder is extreme black and white thinking, and pathological perfectionism. So for me, pinging from the right, to the center, to the left, back to the right, just to avoid other's judgement, just wasn't an option for me. It would have been like falling back off the wagon, so to speak. So you might consider trying being curious about why people do what they do, Batya, rather than insulting them. I know not only that I'm not a coward, but that I'm actually pretty brave, experienced, and wise when it comes to the subject of politic polarization, political identity, and party shifts.
I think the world needs more people who refuse to opt-in to the race to the bottom. Maybe that's unacceptably idealistic, or holier-than-thou, to some. But I don't care, because I did what I wanted and needed to do for my psychological health, to be true to my morals and values, and to do what I think was best for society (not giving a vote to either of these two organized crime syndicates, sorry, political parties). And my feelings in the wake of the election are proving I made the right choice, because I feel really zen, and filled with empathy and understanding for people who voted either way. So why don't you Batya? Because it's pretty clear you are experiencing anger and emotional upset over others' voting decisions. Maybe you doth protest too much?
I love Brianna's input, and I'm saddened by all the people who refer to her with male pronouns.
I'm disgusted how the trans-movement has vilified good people's honest skepticism and criticism, and I'm deeply sad for troubled kids who have been permanently and horribly injured by inappropriate application of well-intentioned gender treatment. Yet I have great respect for Brianna. I'm thrilled she has found strength and peace through her journey, and I hope and expect the pendulum to swing back towards supporting and helping those few who truly benefit from transitioning.
Most issues that persistently divide us are ones that are truly ambiguous. Honest and candid disagreement is the most effective way to refine and improve our understanding and decisions on complex problems. Brianna is willing to question her own beliefs and engage with those who disagree with her.
When Batya Ungar-Sargon said that everyone who is "happy Trump won but couldn't bring themselves to vote for him" is a coward, she disrespected intelligent and brave people. Her comment reflects poorly on her, and I assume it reflects her simplistic disregard for probabilistic thinking.
I am happy Trump was elected because he is a powerful antidote for well-intentioned, but corrosive and illiberal forces in the Progressive movement. I believe many of the things he stands for and things he said he will do are very likely to improve our economy and make most people’s lives better, but I am uncertain about what he will actually do, and I could be wrong about the effect of his policies. He has also said he will do things that I think are corrosive to our society and our economy in a different way than the Progressives. Had Harris been elected, I would have had faith that we could have found an alternative antidote to the poison of the well-intentioned Progressive agenda. I remain hopeful that Trump will not do those illiberal things he said he will do, or that our institutions will survive any illiberal efforts he will undertake.
Pardoning the leaders of the Proud Boys, threatening to continue weaponizing of the justice system like the Democrats did, and threatening to impose broad and massive tariffs are clear warning signs.
I described my feelings on the elections to my kids as being a choice between stage IV cancer or Russian Roulette. Trump’s victory is an effective antidote (in the short term) for the gradual, well-intentioned but corrosive and destructive agenda of the Progressives, but I fear he could be an emerging American Putin. He could also provoke a reaction by Progressives that strengthens them. While my decision on who to vote for balanced on a knife’s edge, and I regretted voting early because I changed my mind after submitting my ballot, I am still unconvinced we are out of the woods. I’m no coward, and I resent being labeled one, particularly by someone who seems willfully blind to clear warning signs.
Y’all have to get someone else who sits in the middle or closer to Batya’s side… with Peter now it’s completely unbalanced and she’s left to defend a conservative perspective. I am conservative myself and don’t agree with all of her views on Trump, but to listen to Peter literally scoff at her in response (while again, she has to constantly defend) and then Brianna condescend… yikes. This was dreadful listening, and honestly I thought it was a good testament to Batya’s ability to handle tough conversations. After all the “gender woo” (as they call it in the UK) discussion, I tuned out. If I heard “vaginoplasty” one more time… 😳
Jordan Peterson never said he would refuse to use the pronouns a person asked for, his issue was the state forcing him to acknowledge and use the pronouns.
Ms Wu's rights are in no way violated by an inscription in her passport. If, by chance, her remains must be repatriated to the USA from a foreign land, the correct chromosome configuration might aid in her identification.
The J6'ers are in no way unpunished. We do, however, celebrate our civil rights when we release the worst criminals imaginable in those frequent cases that the police and prosecutors screw up the case. Well, the Feds screwed up the J6'ers cases.
I suggest you do a close reading of the 14th amendment when discussing birthright citizenship; it is not unconditional.
Ms Wu's friend who has birthright citizenship would not have been vaporized if that policy were not in force. Instead, he and his parents would have filed some papers (the horror!)and gotten citizenship that way. Of course, this depends on having faith that our govt would recognize his suitability for citizenship instead of pursuing some post-modern, bass-ackward, we-win-by-losing, virtue-signaling policy. I hope Trump will restore this faith.
Do you think his intent was to promote Nazism? Or to make a secret appeal to Nazi-sympathizers. Speech and communicative gestures are fundamentally for the purpose of conveying meaning and intent. What do you infer to be his intent? Or is this just another "gotcha!"?
You have three really smart people on there, who, whether you agree with them or not, make for a thoughtful listen. So congrats on adding Peter to complement Bari and Brianna and giving us three really smart voices. And to paraphrase Meat Loaf, three out of four ain't bad.
Given the obvious unpopularity of Brianna Wu, maybe TFP can indicate which podcasts include him so that listeners have the option of skipping some podcasts.
The American Civil War was about over. Secessionists (Insurrectionists) had just killed (not simply attacked) about 400,000 United States military personnel.
In the broadest pardon ever, Lincoln said “With malice toward none, with charity for all…”
I love these episodes. I really value an assortment of opinions.
I think having Batya be the voice of the Right though is actually doing a disservice to them. I come to the FP expecting more than a mouthpiece sent before the public to regurgitate the established talking points. She needs to either up her game, or I'd encourage the editors to find someone else. She seems almost comical next to Brianna and Peter. This not only reflects poorly on her, but on the FP as well. There has got to be critically reflective people from the Right who'd be willing to engage in a good faith dialogue, and capable of fulfilling the mission of the FP.
Well, I suppose if that's the case, then that's an even better reason to find someone else. And, if that's true, and Bari et al. know that, then that's a pretty serious indictment of their project.
Wu undermines the credibility of TFP. From SalI Grover:
- “If you think that women have penises, I won’t believe a single word you say about anything else. Because if you will lie about something so obvious, I will assume you lie about everything.”
Helen Joyce also describes how policies of whole organizations become impacted by fealty to gender ideology by just a few. We can see it already at TFP. Nellie wrote on Friday that there wasn’t any other reason besides a desire to “shame” transgender people for the EO to require federally-issued IDs utilize the immutable categorization of biological sex. Really? The rationale is right in the very first paragraph. “The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.”
There are obviously very sound practical and principled reasons why the EO is good policy, but according to TFP none of those are valid - you have seen into the administration’s soul and concluded they’re mean and trying to shame people. See how quickly trying to find some “middle ground” on gender ideology leads to a dissolution of respect for truth and material reality? “Because if you will lie about something so obvious, I will assume you lie about everything.”
Batya you have gone full Woke Right, and full (pro-Trump) TDS. I was raised far-right conservative, and naturally became moderate in college, until pressure from those around me combined with the 2016 election radicalized me to slip and slide all the way to the far-left. I've been on both extremes long before any of the insulated, lifelong liberals here started talking about the "Vibe Shift" or how maybe conservatives have some fair points. I can guarantee that have spent much more time being a conservative than you have, Batya. When I "got clean" from political extremism a few years ago, I swore I would never let myself feel pressured to "just pick a side," ever again- as long as those sides remained extremist (which I feel they still are).
I'm over-the-moon happy about Trump's executive order protecting women's civil rights from gender identity ideology, I'm looking forward to a crackdown on illegal immigration, and I hope brutal tariffs and a hard stance on China brings manufacturing back to the US. And I didn't vote for Trump, because many of his policies and behaviors violate my core values and morals. I also work in the arts, and Republican financial policies often hurt the arts. I also didn't vote for Kamala Harris, for similar reasons as why I didn't vote for Trump. I was 100% certain Trump would win by a lot (I was also certain Trump would win in 2016- none of this was even slightly hard to predict if you know and speak to conservative people), and I felt ambivalent about it. Because I strongly support one half of his policies and actions, and profoundly disagree with the other half.
Everyone from both sides told me to plug my nose and swallow the bullshit. Well, regardless of what side you're on, if you voted for either major party, you just ate shit. Voting for either of these two political extremists could be described as the cowardly act. Refusing to flush my hard-won political values (of moderation and nuance before all else) down the drain felt like a form of conscientious objection against the two corporations (the Democratic Party and the Republican Party) that currently have our country in a stranglehold of manufactured political extremism. Some people feel like conscientious objection is always morally reprehensible. I, being a person capable of nuanced thinking, empathy, and an understanding that others have different experiences than I do and therefore will make different choices than me, feel at peace with my decision.
To get super personal, I have had intensive, brutal exposure treatment for severe OCD. One of the hallmarks and wellsprings of this horrible disorder is extreme black and white thinking, and pathological perfectionism. So for me, pinging from the right, to the center, to the left, back to the right, just to avoid other's judgement, just wasn't an option for me. It would have been like falling back off the wagon, so to speak. So you might consider trying being curious about why people do what they do, Batya, rather than insulting them. I know not only that I'm not a coward, but that I'm actually pretty brave, experienced, and wise when it comes to the subject of politic polarization, political identity, and party shifts.
I think the world needs more people who refuse to opt-in to the race to the bottom. Maybe that's unacceptably idealistic, or holier-than-thou, to some. But I don't care, because I did what I wanted and needed to do for my psychological health, to be true to my morals and values, and to do what I think was best for society (not giving a vote to either of these two organized crime syndicates, sorry, political parties). And my feelings in the wake of the election are proving I made the right choice, because I feel really zen, and filled with empathy and understanding for people who voted either way. So why don't you Batya? Because it's pretty clear you are experiencing anger and emotional upset over others' voting decisions. Maybe you doth protest too much?
I love Brianna's input, and I'm saddened by all the people who refer to her with male pronouns.
I'm disgusted how the trans-movement has vilified good people's honest skepticism and criticism, and I'm deeply sad for troubled kids who have been permanently and horribly injured by inappropriate application of well-intentioned gender treatment. Yet I have great respect for Brianna. I'm thrilled she has found strength and peace through her journey, and I hope and expect the pendulum to swing back towards supporting and helping those few who truly benefit from transitioning.
Most issues that persistently divide us are ones that are truly ambiguous. Honest and candid disagreement is the most effective way to refine and improve our understanding and decisions on complex problems. Brianna is willing to question her own beliefs and engage with those who disagree with her.
When Batya Ungar-Sargon said that everyone who is "happy Trump won but couldn't bring themselves to vote for him" is a coward, she disrespected intelligent and brave people. Her comment reflects poorly on her, and I assume it reflects her simplistic disregard for probabilistic thinking.
I am happy Trump was elected because he is a powerful antidote for well-intentioned, but corrosive and illiberal forces in the Progressive movement. I believe many of the things he stands for and things he said he will do are very likely to improve our economy and make most people’s lives better, but I am uncertain about what he will actually do, and I could be wrong about the effect of his policies. He has also said he will do things that I think are corrosive to our society and our economy in a different way than the Progressives. Had Harris been elected, I would have had faith that we could have found an alternative antidote to the poison of the well-intentioned Progressive agenda. I remain hopeful that Trump will not do those illiberal things he said he will do, or that our institutions will survive any illiberal efforts he will undertake.
Pardoning the leaders of the Proud Boys, threatening to continue weaponizing of the justice system like the Democrats did, and threatening to impose broad and massive tariffs are clear warning signs.
I described my feelings on the elections to my kids as being a choice between stage IV cancer or Russian Roulette. Trump’s victory is an effective antidote (in the short term) for the gradual, well-intentioned but corrosive and destructive agenda of the Progressives, but I fear he could be an emerging American Putin. He could also provoke a reaction by Progressives that strengthens them. While my decision on who to vote for balanced on a knife’s edge, and I regretted voting early because I changed my mind after submitting my ballot, I am still unconvinced we are out of the woods. I’m no coward, and I resent being labeled one, particularly by someone who seems willfully blind to clear warning signs.
Y’all have to get someone else who sits in the middle or closer to Batya’s side… with Peter now it’s completely unbalanced and she’s left to defend a conservative perspective. I am conservative myself and don’t agree with all of her views on Trump, but to listen to Peter literally scoff at her in response (while again, she has to constantly defend) and then Brianna condescend… yikes. This was dreadful listening, and honestly I thought it was a good testament to Batya’s ability to handle tough conversations. After all the “gender woo” (as they call it in the UK) discussion, I tuned out. If I heard “vaginoplasty” one more time… 😳
Funny I hear Batya as a wrecking ball constantly on the attack and everyone else walking on eggshells. The joys of perception.
Jordan Peterson never said he would refuse to use the pronouns a person asked for, his issue was the state forcing him to acknowledge and use the pronouns.
Coerced speech
He was and remains correct.
Ms Wu's rights are in no way violated by an inscription in her passport. If, by chance, her remains must be repatriated to the USA from a foreign land, the correct chromosome configuration might aid in her identification.
The J6'ers are in no way unpunished. We do, however, celebrate our civil rights when we release the worst criminals imaginable in those frequent cases that the police and prosecutors screw up the case. Well, the Feds screwed up the J6'ers cases.
I suggest you do a close reading of the 14th amendment when discussing birthright citizenship; it is not unconditional.
Ms Wu's friend who has birthright citizenship would not have been vaporized if that policy were not in force. Instead, he and his parents would have filed some papers (the horror!)and gotten citizenship that way. Of course, this depends on having faith that our govt would recognize his suitability for citizenship instead of pursuing some post-modern, bass-ackward, we-win-by-losing, virtue-signaling policy. I hope Trump will restore this faith.
Elon's gesture was not a Nazi salute? Really? Could he have made the same gesture in Germany and gotten away with it?
I think Musk has a wicked enough sense of humor that he was deliberately trolling people like you.
If that is what he was doing, bravo and well done.
As always, when he is being attacked now it’s by those who are angry at him for exposing their fascist surviellance state.
Do you think his intent was to promote Nazism? Or to make a secret appeal to Nazi-sympathizers. Speech and communicative gestures are fundamentally for the purpose of conveying meaning and intent. What do you infer to be his intent? Or is this just another "gotcha!"?
As the fascists always accuse others of what they themselves are doing, Elon is not worried about that nonsense
You have three really smart people on there, who, whether you agree with them or not, make for a thoughtful listen. So congrats on adding Peter to complement Bari and Brianna and giving us three really smart voices. And to paraphrase Meat Loaf, three out of four ain't bad.
Given the obvious unpopularity of Brianna Wu, maybe TFP can indicate which podcasts include him so that listeners have the option of skipping some podcasts.
How about a compromise. Let as many fully transitioned transgender people compete in Women’s sports, as compete in Men’s sports.
J6 pardon precedent - President Lincoln
The American Civil War was about over. Secessionists (Insurrectionists) had just killed (not simply attacked) about 400,000 United States military personnel.
In the broadest pardon ever, Lincoln said “With malice toward none, with charity for all…”
I disagree. I think the justification for the pardons is the unequal overcharging and coercion to plead, and other abuses by the prosecution.
Wu's voice is like nails on a chalkboard. Cannot listen!
Not resubscribing either...
Wu's voice is like nails on a chalkboard. Cannot listen!
Not resubscribing either...
Great Convo! Thank you.
I love these episodes. I really value an assortment of opinions.
I think having Batya be the voice of the Right though is actually doing a disservice to them. I come to the FP expecting more than a mouthpiece sent before the public to regurgitate the established talking points. She needs to either up her game, or I'd encourage the editors to find someone else. She seems almost comical next to Brianna and Peter. This not only reflects poorly on her, but on the FP as well. There has got to be critically reflective people from the Right who'd be willing to engage in a good faith dialogue, and capable of fulfilling the mission of the FP.
I don't believe that she believes half of what she says.
Well, I suppose if that's the case, then that's an even better reason to find someone else. And, if that's true, and Bari et al. know that, then that's a pretty serious indictment of their project.
100%. And you get the sense that she is smart enough to realize what she's doing and how it is coming off.