Thank you for both your and Mia break down of this, because while we out here know these people are full of shit, it helps to have the corn, peanuts and rice in the turd teased out and highlighted.
This was a good one, Peter! With my data on the experiences of 67 trans widows (women who ended a relationship with a suddenly crossdressing husband), I find their gaslighting astounding but not surprising. The 'academic paper loop' is the key to how we've been duped. Here's the experience of trans widow #67, whose ex did all the usual nonsense, including an attempt to get grandchildren to call him some version of grandma.
Rinse and repeat. These psychological warfare models are well known. Similarly when you look at the evidence for virology or anthropogenic global warming. you find no proofs. Only a long term battle of propaganda. Like the covid psyop.
I can’t help but wonder if there’s some key to dismantle all the rebuttals. I watched that entire video that they produced when it first came out.. they will not budge on ANYTHING Michael debates.. and at the end you hear what the goal is in all it’s glory.. to give trans men full access to all women’s spaces.
It’s just so wild. Only men could be so adamant about wanting to gain access to women’s spaces. But you present another factor, that is those who are arguing on their behalf are themselves victims of hoax papers and reports! Why else would one argue over something so absurd.. other than to think they are doing the “right thing”.
I dunno Peter, I wish you could expose all of this.
You're only one of several Substack writers who I have been following, and I like your writing. Only recently been seeing your videos....KEEP UP the GOOD WORK, Peter!
The same corrupt self-citing ladder was used to produce the Russia-Russia scandal. Those "17 experts" were deployed on the false nuclear SD card story and it was driven up the spiral from there.
It's very hard to combat without sounding crazy, because most people aren't familiar with the old standards of citation and print story stability.
Print story stability went away almost without noticing. The first place I saw it was Yahoo! news in the mid-oughts. News articles would be updated under the same headline without corrections--but they weren't corrections, they were full length rewrites. At that time there was still an interest in stable outlinks and dated-bylined references, in more respected media, but that went away within a few years. As far as I'm aware, only true readers ever noticed it.
There is not any expectation among the general audience that news "content" should live up to abstract standards, and no expectation that they as readers can or should evaluate it in that light. I thought at one point this is a media literacy problem but it's more a logic literacy problem I think. One can derive principles that should be applied to media, or to peer review quality, or paper citations, or anything else, from logic...
Marshall McLuhan predicted this problem when he assessed the stability of print as the factor that enabled rational thought. I don't think he was proselytizing for post-literacy as much as some fans think he was...
I don't know what to call the circularity and self-feeding problem. It's been given all sorts of snappy names in the past but that was when rational thought and stable reference points were the expectation. About a decade ago, a newly minted MFA professor told me that ""philosophers" [theory writers and thinkpiecers] *of course* start imposing new meanings on words without establishing their priors or admitting that's what they are doing". But of course that sort of dominance-via-confusion game isn't how all thought has always proceeded. That sort of approach is used in medical papers, though. Another place I see it is in pain management literature, which is also highly ideological, with the realities being denied there including that: severe pain is not shiftable by yoda-mind-skills, and new products being hawked by pharmaceutical companies that leverage deeply psychiatric alterations don't stop pain just because sadness often accompanies unreduced pain. In this medical scenario, patients really do kill themselves because they aren't allowed to have strong pain medication, and there are also strong ideological (puritan) and legislated pressures to not provide pain relief. So the stakes are high, and truth is a casualty.
If you know of any pithy way to describe the whole corrupt phenomenon of laddering narratives, I'd be so grateful. All I'm ever able to offer is what seems obvious to me, "of course that's nonsense" but that doesn't explain the problem to everyday people, and the exercise of pointing out each fallacy is endless, like whack-a-mole.
Worse still is to seem like a conspiracy theorist. Mia says this to me in subsequent conversations. And she’s correct! (Those deep dives will be forthcoming.)
This was excellent Guys!!
Thank you for both your and Mia break down of this, because while we out here know these people are full of shit, it helps to have the corn, peanuts and rice in the turd teased out and highlighted.
Bravo Sir & Ma'am!!
This was a good one, Peter! With my data on the experiences of 67 trans widows (women who ended a relationship with a suddenly crossdressing husband), I find their gaslighting astounding but not surprising. The 'academic paper loop' is the key to how we've been duped. Here's the experience of trans widow #67, whose ex did all the usual nonsense, including an attempt to get grandchildren to call him some version of grandma.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPvkZqkaq14&t=13s
Thanks. I’m glad you enjoyed it Ute. We have some great deep dives with Mia that are coming out.
Every iteration of Critical Theory ideology is idea laundered.
Correct!
Rinse and repeat. These psychological warfare models are well known. Similarly when you look at the evidence for virology or anthropogenic global warming. you find no proofs. Only a long term battle of propaganda. Like the covid psyop.
30:27 mark. I'm thinking Eugenics. Very popular until April/May 1945.
See my recent tweet on this.
?
I can’t help but wonder if there’s some key to dismantle all the rebuttals. I watched that entire video that they produced when it first came out.. they will not budge on ANYTHING Michael debates.. and at the end you hear what the goal is in all it’s glory.. to give trans men full access to all women’s spaces.
It’s just so wild. Only men could be so adamant about wanting to gain access to women’s spaces. But you present another factor, that is those who are arguing on their behalf are themselves victims of hoax papers and reports! Why else would one argue over something so absurd.. other than to think they are doing the “right thing”.
I dunno Peter, I wish you could expose all of this.
That’s because they hold the beliefs on moral and not epistemic grounds.
Interesting listen, I like Michael Knowles and Mia is great. I am trying to have the tiny bit of optimism she has.
She’s “based,” as the kids say.
Good video! Michael Knowles is almost TOO considerate, and polite here!....
I really liked the fact checks!
You're only one of several Substack writers who I have been following, and I like your writing. Only recently been seeing your videos....KEEP UP the GOOD WORK, Peter!
The same corrupt self-citing ladder was used to produce the Russia-Russia scandal. Those "17 experts" were deployed on the false nuclear SD card story and it was driven up the spiral from there.
It's very hard to combat without sounding crazy, because most people aren't familiar with the old standards of citation and print story stability.
Print story stability went away almost without noticing. The first place I saw it was Yahoo! news in the mid-oughts. News articles would be updated under the same headline without corrections--but they weren't corrections, they were full length rewrites. At that time there was still an interest in stable outlinks and dated-bylined references, in more respected media, but that went away within a few years. As far as I'm aware, only true readers ever noticed it.
There is not any expectation among the general audience that news "content" should live up to abstract standards, and no expectation that they as readers can or should evaluate it in that light. I thought at one point this is a media literacy problem but it's more a logic literacy problem I think. One can derive principles that should be applied to media, or to peer review quality, or paper citations, or anything else, from logic...
Marshall McLuhan predicted this problem when he assessed the stability of print as the factor that enabled rational thought. I don't think he was proselytizing for post-literacy as much as some fans think he was...
I don't know what to call the circularity and self-feeding problem. It's been given all sorts of snappy names in the past but that was when rational thought and stable reference points were the expectation. About a decade ago, a newly minted MFA professor told me that ""philosophers" [theory writers and thinkpiecers] *of course* start imposing new meanings on words without establishing their priors or admitting that's what they are doing". But of course that sort of dominance-via-confusion game isn't how all thought has always proceeded. That sort of approach is used in medical papers, though. Another place I see it is in pain management literature, which is also highly ideological, with the realities being denied there including that: severe pain is not shiftable by yoda-mind-skills, and new products being hawked by pharmaceutical companies that leverage deeply psychiatric alterations don't stop pain just because sadness often accompanies unreduced pain. In this medical scenario, patients really do kill themselves because they aren't allowed to have strong pain medication, and there are also strong ideological (puritan) and legislated pressures to not provide pain relief. So the stakes are high, and truth is a casualty.
If you know of any pithy way to describe the whole corrupt phenomenon of laddering narratives, I'd be so grateful. All I'm ever able to offer is what seems obvious to me, "of course that's nonsense" but that doesn't explain the problem to everyday people, and the exercise of pointing out each fallacy is endless, like whack-a-mole.
Worse still is to seem like a conspiracy theorist. Mia says this to me in subsequent conversations. And she’s correct! (Those deep dives will be forthcoming.)