I don't like the use of "Trust" here and would much rather have "Reliability" because it can be grounded in statistics.

I did skim over a few parts towards the end, but it was a pretty good read. Thanks for sharing.

Wouldn't evidence fall under the observation category in the trifecta that constitutes "Facts"?

It feels like this attenuation of facts implies, because of the sheer amount of context and observations there could be, there cannot be clear and easily verified truth conditions. Trust feels like the catch-all to where observation and context fail because Part 3 ends with allowing the reader faithful beliefs to a certain extent. I believe the second part also goes into alternative facts to explain the consensus people can buy into depending on the "Facts" - perhaps to eventually lead up to the end.

Wittgenstein's revenge, I would think, puts us in a blackhole passed the event horizon. We are inescapable of the language(s) we speak and have implicitly put truth on the otherside. Eventually, truth (technically, this kind of truth can always be around us but we just don't know it) would gravitate towards us but only if we're in the right space, time, and conscious enough. We can at least begin accept it then. That's just for ourselves too. Imagine trying to share truth with someone else! Feels like a miracle if that happened especially in our day and age. Then again, I feel like truth is outside the scope of the article, so this is just my understanding.

Material used in the upcoming John Wick 4?

Yes. Generous tits is a good motivator.

Its practice wasn't sound. There is no sound public healthcare option for trans people, let alone trans youth, in the UK.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yup! It's as simple as that!

Yeah, I agree. "Context omission is always subjective" seems like a wrong way to put it. Let's split facts into assertions about a model/approximation of the world being accurate (usually implicit), and an assertion about what the truth is within that model (explicit). (That split isn't always a clear bright line, btw.)

The first part is implicit, and thus 1. less visible, 2. more fluid, in that in an argument, you can often pretend you had a different context in mind later, or your intelocutor can have a very incompatible one in mind. Hence the need for trust and compromise. But it's not really any more subjective than the second part - the choice of model is very much like the choice of fact/assertion/observation within the model: it strongly depends on the world, we can tell it is intersubjective, people tend to agree on it independently, we can call it "correct" or "wrong", etc. That's all closer to what we usually call objective, like "the sky is blue", unlike "I like anchovies", even though you always need context even for objective claims ("not at night, obviously").

I find your definition of self a bit reductionist tbh. I also find your tone a bit patronising but we'll move past that.

Your take is somewhat solipsistic. You agree that we are slave to our perceptions and experiences but seem to think the self transcends this.

Just because you choose to identify with your thoughts doesn't make them anymore 'you'.

Now, I know where our communication problem arises. I think there are a lot of confusions, some people talk about selfish vs. selfless, some other people talk about having a strong sense of individual self vs. having no individual self (even in your comment first vs. second paragraph). An "individual self" is an entity having a coherent goal and desire. My discussion is more of the latter (although the two are somewhat related). Also, you have a similar logic as another commenter, basically saying that any "groupist" ideology that suppresses "individual rights" means eliminating the "selfs" in its partsand hence is "selfless" (I think it has to do with the language used by historical sociology texts).

To your other point. If you already recognize that the true essence of self is relational and an interconnected whole, why need to glorify it (which is the point)? it is what it is already. And do you really think this is how the majority of people think about "self"?

Yes I have no doubt there are various publications presenting the closure of the Tavistock clinic as a means to promote anti-trans idealogy however the point in question, from what I understand is where the closure of Tavistock just and whether it’s practice was sound.

It’s a tragedy that Trans kids face these waiting lists but so is every other sector, including those with cancer, so it’s fundamentally how poor the NHS is being run that is the main problem.

Stranger, I'm quite sure you aren't reading what I'm saying. I'm talking about bias in the British press. Getting some facts right while spinning them to paint transness in a negative light is still anti-trans. The problem with trans healthcare in the UK is not that too many kids were getting drugs, but that so few trans youth were being seen compared to the number of referrals. The wait lists for first assessments are astronomically high.

That is not really true when comparing 1:1. Besides when we say powerless it means that the power they have is disproportionately going to bring negative consequences.

Masters become slaves to keep a ratio of 70%.

This is all a fancy way to say “travel fast? Go alone. Travel far? Go together.”

The issue isn’t with Trans rights, it’s about private clinic contracted by the NHS handed out hormone treatment to children without thorough examination from the view of a senior consultant whose heads of Trust tried to silence. If there practice was so morally sound they would have allowed transparency in the report and wouldn’t have tried to shut him down.

This about consent of the child, not being pushed by doctors bankrolled by a public sector contract or pushy parents and be careful and being sure.

The somehow idea that this is against trans rights lack nuance. It isn’t a case of denying treatment, it’s about being damn sure that there isn’t any other underlying mental health issues that maybe spurring the dysphoria like autism, depression or other such things.

Yes, even the Guardian. It was so bad there that at one point the Guardian in America said something.

Here it is.

When I say there's an anti-trans bias in the British press, I don't mean they're using "facts I don't like", I mean that the British press is well-known by the trans community for sensationalizing, fear-mongering, and spinning stories to paint trans people in a negative light.

See for yourself.

I think I start to see where the problem might have arisen. Let's focus back into the "individuals" inside Nazis and forget about whether "Fascism" as an ideology is respecting selfs.

Hitler is a self-conscious individual who did a lot of thinkings himself and thus cannot be described as "selfless", agree? The next guy, let's name him Joe, confidently believes in Nazi ideology or the bollock from Hitler and had thought about it thoroughly. Is he selfless?...

I think the problem is that you implicitly assumed an ideology (e.g., fascism, communism) not respecting "individual rights" would eliminate the "self" in its part. (I know sociology texts made a lot subtle statements that groupist equate no self and might have subtly influenced in how we communicate)

Now, read your own statement again "It's brutally selfish towards outsiders, and brutally selfless within." and apply it to you. Your cells are brutally selfless within (the requirement of developing you, the yourself), but it might or might not be selfless towards the outside, agree?

When they say stuff like the following, that sounds fairly unbiased and objective.

>The NHS gender identity service’s own data shows that 96 per cent of children

Also it's strange to treat all major press including far left media as having an anti-trans bias.

The words anti-trans and transphobic are just thrown around soo much that they have lost all meaning. So when you say that all British media are anti-trans, I have no idea if they actually are anti-trans or if they used some facts you don't like.

You are right, it is expected and implicit in the article that the ego will push back after reading such an article (I know I could have done better sounding less condescending though). Nevertheless, it is not about a magic bullet, you just need to plant a seed, this is a long-term process of realization.

Since you mentioned the advantage of social mimicry. People are not just mimicking to get some (I don't know what) advantages, without their idea of self being influenced in the midst.

If you claim there is some large-scale evolutionary advantage/reason of social mimicry, then most people are surely being influenced by societal norms and values, no? And now you start to ask, are the current societal norms and values "good", or are close to anything of our evolutionary past?

Feel free to dig into the issue and I'm sure you'll agree. There's nothing pretend about the anti-trans bias in the British press.

Sorry, lost track a bit since there are too many comments, but you made some interesting points.
It seems you live quite close to what the article suggests: just go do what you like and find meaningful, and be conscious about that. And there is no need to try to fulfill a particular idea of self, it should always be changing, ideally changed by empirical data (that way you connect with the whole), not by some internal data of who you think you are.

But I see a problem when I read: "despite living entirely for myself ive done more to help others and the environment than most have, likely including yourself (planted well-over 10,000 trees, i intentionally own less than 5k in total possessions"

Why you would say you live for "myself", if you are trying to do a lot for others? It reads a bit like stamp collection here to try to fulfill a particular image, you have to be conscious about the consequence of your actions (e.g., many studies have concluded that tree planting, if not done rightly, have a very bad effect on the ecosystem, and is a green-washing technique to fulfill "carbon offset"), it is not about reaching on a particular fix number, it is not a race, it is about the long-term effect.