Yeah for sure. It’s certainly not comprehensive. Definitely going to look more into Wittgenstein

But I think for such a brief read this post is pretty good value epistemologically

I thought of it like..

If the moon is shining through my window and I hold my fist up to it and compare - I can objectively say that my fist is bigger than the moon. I could probably even get a ruler and take some measurements to prove it. So I can say that it’s a Fact that my fist is larger than the moon. The context I’m omitting here, obviously, is that the moon is 200 thousand miles further away. That’s why you need the trust part. You have to trust that the curator of a fact has omitted context that frames truth in a way that is useful and enlightening instead of obfuscating

That doesn’t mean truth is relative, but observations and measurements definitely are

Sorry to hear that. I agree with you though, and see that a sense of self for sure makes you mentally stable. But as I understand it nothing in nature is static, and as part of nature we don't want to be too stable, especially if its in conformity to corrupt societies or systems.

Wishing you mental health and fluidity from afar.

Isn't this just what the right do, pretend any news they don't like is fake news?

Nitpicking. After 100 steps they're indistinguishable.

[removed]

Tragedy is often what makes the turn-around possible!
The masks comes of more easily all at once.

Sometimes there's just a lot of masks.

Well my evidence is that Tavistock has been reported as a “conveyor belt to puberty blockers” and high levels of encouragement for surgery, as well as basing these interventions on poor or no research.

My claim was that social and political pressure from trans activists has created an environment where decisions are made not on the best medical information and what is right for an individual, but instead, there is an idiological environment that encourages medical intervention.

Is that not exactly what has been reported?

There is a reluctance by people in this thread to acknowledge that one of the flagship NHS gender practices may be operating in a way that pushes children into hormone and surgery interventions- this is despite thorough investigation by the NHS regulator, independent journalists, and many patients and doctors coming forward.

It looks an awful lot like people have decided that any criticism or anything related to transgender issues or trans activism must be transphobia.

Evidence for you below, or check out any number of articles on Tavistock

https://www.ft.com/content/a45a9a0b-5d2f-4c4a-b2ef-6a8796ea5d10

I don't see anything "illogical" about it. Perhaps you can elaborate? If chemicals controlled our brain, like the medical field and psychiatry has believed (and appears to largely still believe), depression which, in this reductive view, is purely a chemical imbalance. This is why anti-depressants are often quickly given to anyone suffering from depression. But if this was actually true, the anti-depressants must be hyper-effective. The direct effect is however relatively miniscule.
Hesitating from saying that our brain works in any highly specific way (chemicals controlling our brain) and stating that we barely know how the brain functions is hardly contradictory. Also, the support in my small 3-sentence paragraph is the replication crisis: Somewhere around half of all studies published within psychology and medicine is proven false within 1 year after publishing. That is not a healthy and normal figure in science, it is abyssmal, and that's only the studies being tested. This attest to the fact that there are major fundamental misunderstandings and fundamental assumptions within each field which are completely incorrect. Fruit from a sick tree, you could say. That is the support in my short paragraph, it was just summed up by "the replication crisis".

It's definitely the word "control" I react on. Again, it strikes me as overly reductive. There is a significant difference between saying that hormones can control, i.e. dictate, our emotions, and saying that they play an important role in how our emotions emerge and function.

I was actually not talking at all about what you initially replied to regarding emotional experience.

Meh. I see the point being made (and I definitely agree with the skepticism about blockchain fact pools and fact-checking services), but it seems a bit... lightweight?

Like, it doesn't seem to tackle evidence, or facts-as-provisional-beliefs. He also doesn't seem to distinguish between the way general members of the public use "it's a fact" and the way an expert on a topic might use it, the later of which (at least in a scientific context) I've generally found to implicitly be saying "this is the only position reasonable to hold based on our current understanding and evidence", which comes with an implicit invitation to rebut with additional information.

Any discussion of this topic needs to be account for statements with very clear, and easily verified truth conditions. While I don't think the author is encouraging a perspective of complete truth-relativism, the framework he's constructed seems unable to escape it. Perhaps if he'd dug more into the context portion of his triangle, and interrogated how true statements interact with selective framing, he might be able to make a better distinction?

>Among these concerns were the fact that children attending GIDS often seemed to be rehearsed and sometimes did not share their parents’ sense of urgency; that senior staff spoke of “straightforward cases” in terms of children who were to be put on puberty blockers (no case of gender dysphoria, notes Bell, can be said to be straightforward); that some were recommended for treatment after just two appointments and seen only infrequently thereafter; some felt that GIDS employed too many inexperienced (and inexpensive) psychologists; that clinicians who’d spoken of homophobia in the unit were told they had “personal issues”. One told Bell that a child as young as eight had been referred to an endocrinologist for treatment. “I could not go on like this… I could not live with myself given the poor treatment the children were obtaining,” said another.

This is from Dr Bell, one of the senior consultants at Tavistock in an Guardian interview

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids

Even The Guardian?

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids

>Specifically she found it to be "boring, unoriginal, dishonest, and lazy."

That's just name calling, not actually engaging with his arguments.

The whole article just felt like someone who got angry and emotional and hence just nit picked, and used name calling as a response rather than rationally engaging with what Zizek said.

Also the term transphobic is just going to lose all meaning with the way it's just thrown about so loosely without good reason.

/r/philosophy does not allow the posting or advertising of any Discord (or similar software) channels.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

>The Tavistock was closed down for, essentially, being oversubscribed. The interim report goes into more nuanced detail, of course.

That's just seems like a misleading retelling of history.

If it was solely just closed for being oversubscribed, wouldn't it make sense to wait until the replacement centres were set up first.

Let's look as statement from Cass who is writing the report.

​

>Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust has been told to shut the clinic by spring after it was criticised in an independent review.
>
>Dr Hilary Cass, said the Tavistock clinic needed to be transformed.
>
>She said the current model of care was leaving young people "at considerable risk" of poor mental health and distress, and having one clinic was not "a safe or viable long-term option".
>
>Dr Cass's report said there was a lack of understanding about why the type of patients the clinic was seeing was changing, with more female to male patients and more autistic children. Dr Cass also highlighted inconclusive evidence to back some of the clinical decision making.
>
>But in 2020, questions about the service were raised after it was rated "inadequate" by inspectors,
>
>In an interim report earlier this year, Dr Cass said:
>
>The service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists
>
>It was not keeping "routine and consistent" data on its patients
>
>Health staff felt under pressure to adopt an "unquestioning affirmative approach"
>
>Once patients are identified as having gender-related distress, other healthcare issues they had, such as being neurodivergent, "can sometimes be overlooked"
>
>She then suggested introducing local hubs, writing that the current provider model "is not a safe or viable long-term option".
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62335665

I imagine it would be possible to programm a multi level hierarchy so that "point providers" (although probably not the "suicide bombers" ) can still give an advantage to their higher-ups in later iterations of the tournament. Also, I imagine having a lot of offspring from the first iteration gives a statistical advantage to the "masters" , especially since they just can use a forgiving tit for tat strategy when their opponent doesn't identify as a member of the cult.

The idea behind this is that a focus on the self leads to disharmony because people start to see their traits as particularly unique and isolated. That can make someone feel way more inferior or superior to others due to too much focus on some concept of a unique constant self. When there’s less focus on the self a person can see themselves as part of a whole and make changes and feel normalcy etc. as opposed to being stuck absorbed within what you’ve labeled yourself.

I don't think he's seriously arguing that it's possible, just saying one might count those things as "evidence of UFO's" and others might not

I agree, but the concept is in such opposition to a lot of western culture and capitalist values. Because of that I think it has to be explained in different words for a lot of people to understand it.

I can't tell if they're serious about that "extraterrestrials have been visiting earth" part or not

Wow, Tat is one lucky guy!

thanks for sharing I forgot I had added this podcast until now

[removed]

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Wow. Way to go deeper. I need to learn to do more of this.