Most active commenters
  • asmor(6)
  • viiviiv(3)

←back to thread

324 points dvh | 17 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jahsome ◴[] No.43298548[source]
I absolutely love how fired up the average YouTube commenter was about Honey... for about 72 hours. People completely unaffected in any way were demanding class action lawsuits, etc with seemingly no clue why they were even upset. Then the subject completely left their minds.

This observation is of course entirely anecdotal, but manufactured outrage is so fascinating, even if it currently eroding the very foundations of society.

replies(18): >>43298579 #>>43298600 #>>43298610 #>>43298640 #>>43298733 #>>43298933 #>>43298942 #>>43298977 #>>43299229 #>>43299390 #>>43299411 #>>43299451 #>>43299754 #>>43299776 #>>43300000 #>>43300017 #>>43300261 #>>43300604 #
thinkingemote ◴[] No.43298579[source]
Where a lot of online content to be consumed is about dopamine, a lot of other stuff is about spiking cortisol.

There's people on every forum (and regularly here) that suggest, sometimes explicitly, that we must have elevated anxiety and stress levels in response to specific presented content as a moral imperative.

I think cortisol makes the "content" feel more "important" or relevant at the present moment in time. 72 hours later assuming no other exploits our body systems adjust and the content isn't important. It's weird when we notice it, but most of the time our cortisol is being directed to another topic so we don't notice.

There's a ton written about our dopamine addiction and how it's exploited but not much about cortisol and our negative emotions are being exploited.

replies(4): >>43298632 #>>43298650 #>>43298949 #>>43299004 #
caseyy ◴[] No.43298650[source]
Many people say that overthinking, anxiety, and stress are moral imperatives as a response to something they don't like: content, political ideas, celebrities, technology companies, and many other things.

It is a completely ineffective method of making a change. I wish they'd stop spreading their anxieties online. I know it makes them feel like they're doing something, but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them.

replies(7): >>43298772 #>>43298837 #>>43298921 #>>43299268 #>>43299696 #>>43300091 #>>43300277 #
1. asmor ◴[] No.43298921[source]
Is my anxiety warranted yet if I'm a trans person? Because I wish people would at least acknowledge reality, that there is a tangible threat of genocide around, that we're being targeted for easy rhetorical wins, that trans women are currently put in men's prison despite court orders prohibiting it - not despite but because they'll be raped and "v-coded".

What I mostly get is indifference or "didoing" ("it's not so bad") - and yes, that indifference spikes my anxiety. Because it feels like this is the same indifference that ultimately lead to "Didn't the Germans know what was happening?". The answer is, they didn't care to look.

replies(2): >>43299214 #>>43300134 #
2. viiviiv ◴[] No.43299214[source]
There's no tangible threat of genocide though. Perhaps you've been overexposed to a social media bubble that's steeped in anxiety about this, despite there being no plausible prospect of such a horror occurring?
replies(2): >>43299256 #>>43299312 #
3. asmor ◴[] No.43299256[source]
Here we go again.

You need to read up on the definition of genocide (especially beyond thinking of it as the last 2-3 stages; being defined out of existence is quite literally EO 14168) and then maybe have a look at https://translegislation.com/.

It's one of those things that'll always sound exaggerated, even if it's not.

replies(1): >>43299363 #
4. pjc50 ◴[] No.43299312[source]
There's a very real prospect of criminalization and forced de transition, though.
replies(2): >>43299342 #>>43299746 #
5. asmor ◴[] No.43299342{3}[source]
Eradication doesn't need to happen though death, though these actions of course also raise the suicide rate. Displacement, cultural eradication, making it impossible to exist in public, stochastic terrorism though constant demonization - these are all already here.

If you all feel more comfortable with those words, feel free to replace genocide with all of the above. Does not help with my anxiety being rooted more in indifference to the actions than the actions themselves.

6. viiviiv ◴[] No.43299363{3}[source]
Interesting website but could you explain why this legislation, most of which was rejected, indicates intent to commit genocide?

I honestly do not see how, to take one example, athletes only being allowed to compete against others of the same sex is a step on the path to genocide.

This suggestion of genocide does sound very exaggerated, and I believe your anxiety on this is misplaced.

replies(1): >>43299613 #
7. asmor ◴[] No.43299613{4}[source]
The sports bans are distractions or canaries at best. They're a wedge for making action against trans people palatable, as even democrats will occasionally, as a gut feeling, agree with them. There's a nuanced discussion to be had, but ultimately it should be fairly obvious that republicans do not actually care about women's sports. These bills are proposed for different reasons. The sheer volume of the legislation should make it clear alone. It's March, and we got more bills introduced this year than last year already.

If you can't get the image of genocide as traincars and skull piles out of your head, I can't help you, but there's a concerted effort to make our lives miserable to unlivable and to definitionally erase us from public consciousness (aside from painting us as legitimate dehumanized targets). If you can't see that I can't help you, I can just stack it on my anxiety pile as someone else who never wondered how Germany was for Jews (and many other groups, including queer people) in the decade before the holocaust.

8. viiviiv ◴[] No.43299746{3}[source]
How do you mean? As in, what activities do you anticipate being criminalized?
replies(3): >>43299850 #>>43299911 #>>43318582 #
9. asmor ◴[] No.43299850{4}[source]
Healthcare, as in the hormones requires to transition and not detransition. The system is also likely cruel enough that it'll leave people who've had any kind of GRS without hormone replacement at all, and you don't want to have no sex hormone in your body, your bones don't appreciate it.

There's also some "performance" ban bills that are broad enough that they could classify a trans person existing in public as "drag performance" (the website you didn't read says "However, the language of the laws is so broad that it could extend to performances of Shakespeare.").

Please at least to attempt to "engage curiously" next time, the answers are all here.

replies(1): >>43308370 #
10. UncleMeat ◴[] No.43299911{4}[source]
There are bathroom bills in 13 US states. Trans people (especially those who pass well) need to make a rather difficult choice when out in public for more than a few hours. Do they use the bathroom that matches their gender identity and run risk of criminal punishment? Do they use the bathroom that matches their birth sex but the look completely out of place and make it likely that they will be harassed or have the cops called on them? Neither option is good. If you can't use public bathrooms safely then "being out of your home for more than a short period of time" is a denied right.

We've seen bills introduced to consider trans people "misrepresenting" their gender as different from their birth sex as criminal fraud. This isn't too far from the current administration's executive order banning trans people from the military for being "liars", according to the bigots in the administration.

There are also bills trying to make the public visibility of trans people something that is threatening to children based on the bigoted perception of trans people as child rapists. So you'll get things like "public performance" classified as sexualized drag performance so that trans people experience the same limitations on being in or around places with children as sex offenders.

Then, of course, there is all the basic healthcare stuff. The white house put out an executive order (currently delayed by courts) withholding federal funding for hospitals that provide gender affirming care for people age 18 and 19. These are legal adults. If this stands, we'll almost surely start seeing legislation banning gender affirming care for adults in various red states. Criminalizing hormone treatment is forced detransition.

replies(1): >>43300170 #
11. caseyy ◴[] No.43300134[source]
I would say anxiety is not warranted, but when the circumstances become dangerous to you, action might be.

Perhaps use the exit, voice, and loyalty (EVL) model. It describes three effective responses that don't involve anxiety. Exit means you remove yourself from the situation — perhaps you move to a state where your rights are better protected or leave your current doctor for an activist doctor. Voice means getting into rooms and on the phone with decision-makers, as well as preparing for this. Loyalty means you stop worrying and remain loyal to an organization but hopeful that things will change. In this model, remaining in the situation and stressing about it is a misguided choice.

Just as you worry about the Third Reich, the EVL model explains the coping strategies of people who were under the regime. Some exited, some dissented, and some chose loyalty. These were very functional strategies.

I'm not going to debate the exaggerated genocide claim. Still, I'd say be careful how you use this specific historical term, as much genocide is happening in the world today, and much has happened in the last several generations. Some readers will have family trauma; it's easy to offend people this way and turn them off to your cause. In general, the more emotional language you use, the less trustworthy you will appear.

Either way, I acknowledge your anxiety is real and that some harm may come your way in the future. I want to be clear: this is not a dismissal of your fears. But I suggest action instead. Whether that action protects you or others in similar circumstances, it will be more effective than worrying.

replies(2): >>43307511 #>>43307592 #
12. conartist6 ◴[] No.43300170{5}[source]
> Do they use the bathroom that matches their gender identity and run risk of criminal punishment? Do they use the bathroom that matches their birth sex but the look completely out of place and make it likely that they will be harassed or have the cops called on them?

Thanks for writing up this answer. I suspect the commenter you are replying to has never even stopped to consider the experience of a real person and what it would be like.

replies(1): >>43300240 #
13. UncleMeat ◴[] No.43300240{6}[source]
The entire situation is just so asinine. In addition to the clear pain and suffering this causes trans people, it also hurts cis people and doesn't even achieve the stated goal of making cis women feel safe in the bathroom (not that it would justify the bigoted policies, even if it did).

There are plenty of butch cis women who now get harassed in the bathroom for "looking like a man" because these policies have opened up the floodgates for bigots to transvestigate everybody they come across. And if everybody follows the law as written then there will be people using the women's restroom who are indistinguishable from cis men unless you inspect documentation (which nobody is obliged to carry in public) or inspect genitals.

The true outcome (and I believe the true goal, though not typically stated out loud) is that trans people (and people who don't fit rigid and traditional gender presentations) are simply not able to be in public safely.

The regression we've seen in legal rights has been so swift. In 2016 North Carolina tried to pass one of these bills and major organizations like the NCAA and Paypal took serious economic action in order to get it reversed. It felt like a society-wide rejection where it wasn't just left leaning activists pushing back but major organizations without a typical political agenda too.

In the past four years we've seen 13 states pass bathroom bills and more than half the states pass gender affirming care bans for minors largely without a peep from corporations.

14. ◴[] No.43307511[source]
15. asmor ◴[] No.43307592[source]
Considering how this thread went, and how there's just no way to reach most people anymore in this post truth affect driven world, yeah maybe I should live in rural Iceland or something.

> I'm not going to debate the exaggerated genocide claim.

Too late, you called it exaggerated. I'm wondering, would you consider residential schools genocide?

16. ◴[] No.43308370{5}[source]
17. pjc50 ◴[] No.43318582{4}[source]
In addition to the very good sibling answers: look up what the original Stonewall riot was about. Crossdressing (not the same as being trans! but a necessary precursor) was illegal, and the police could carry out raids and arrest people for wearing gender non-conforming clothing.

This is (just about) in living memory - Donald Trump was 22 years old when the Stonewall riot happened - and there's plenty of people who would like to roll back the law to then. Not just ban trans people but overturn Obergefell v Hodges just like they did with Roe v Wage, end gay marriage, and re-criminalize homosexuality and LGBT expression. Which is why the community rallies against attempts to split off trans people from LGBT.