Jump to content
  • Welcome to the TransPulse Forums!

    We offer a safe, inclusive community for transgender and gender non-conforming folks, as well as their loved ones, to find support and information.  Join today!

Military Chaplain Investigated for FB Post Denigrating Trans Service Members


Recommended Posts

Oh.. my 😡  well with the new SecDef emphasis on stamping out intolerance and the renewed Trans policy I have a feeling this will not end well for US Army Lieutenant Calvert (see that?  I already demoted him).

Link to post
  • Admin

While the "Major" comments against Flat Earth beliefs, he is still attesting to Creation Science which is a practice of twisting and mangling legitimate 5 sense based science into unwavering support of scriptural based literal interpretations of the physical universe.  Ongoing Anthropological work is discovering that not even the cultures that produced those scriptures believed they were the literal physical process that happened.  I agree that he is not a fit person for military Chaplaincy.

 

Link to post

Wow, the vid by Kristin Beck that's accessed through the link Carolyn Marie posted -- is really worth watching. She's a 21 year retired Navy Seal veteran who served on Team 6, and transitioned after retirement. She has a lot to say.

 

The military and the VA seem to be pretty committed to accepting and helping transgender GI's. That's good, smart and ethical. I concur with Vicky's observation that the biased chaplin is basing his criticism on an unproven faith in a supernatural "Divinity" who he thinks created the universe. Question for Chaplin Calvert: If you believe in a God who created humans, how can you reject transgender folks -- as we say, "God don't make no junk." And BTW, do you think he also created all intelligent life in that universe? So are we humans created in the "Image of God," or are humans the "best" creation of all life in the universe?

 

Just curious.

~~Hugs, from Lee~~

Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
Ellie Jean

Lol, there are sooo many things wrong with what Calvert said. XD BUT, to play devil's advocate, he's perfectly entitled to his opinions, and I understand why he has them, (because he was brainwashed by the Church as a child, poor guy lol.), I also don't necessarily feel he should be fired for voicing an opinion; doing so would be a violation of the 1st Amendment if I understand correctly, and would thus mean ANYONE could be fired or "cancelled" for having an opinion someone else disagrees with, which would end up leading to totalitarianism. If we really want to support free speech, that means we also have to support the right to speech that we don't agree with, otherwise we ourselves would be guilty of bias. Nobody ever fought and died for the right to "love speech" lol. We like having the freedom to say hateful things to others and to our government; if we didn't have the right to hate-speech, I wouldn't be able to tell Calvert what a bigoted jerk-off piece of garbage he is without being incarcerated or unfairly targeted by extremists lol. Freedom of speech works both ways; in the end we have to trust that GOOD speech will prevail over BAD speech; we have to trust the People to know the difference and make up their own minds without trying to influence things one way or the other by infringing on anyone's right to be an idiot lol. 

@Major Calvert: Thank you for your service, but seriously, God doesn't give a blue hell if I'm transgender or not. (Personally I don't even believe in God but if I did I sincerely doubt my gender identity would matter to him/her/them/it lol.)

Link to post
Ellie Jean

Lol, technically I'd say that Calvert's belief in God is evidence of mental instability lol. XD

Really though, who on Earth ISN'T mentally unstable to some degree? The DSM-V is a reeeallly THICK book; there's something in there for everyone lol.

Link to post

I understand being annoyed at someone making hateful comments, and even the fact that as an institution historically religious groups have caused a lot of personal hurt in the trans and lgbt+ community and feelings can run strong, I am a pastor and I too am not looking forward to the reactions and hatred of some of my colleagues, but I also know that I will have the support of some great people who genuinely understand the meaning of loving everyone regardless of race, gender or social status. Their voices are just not as loud nor as much fun to sell on media platforms.

The chaplain is supposed to be there to support everyone from all faith's and none and from all ranks, if he cannot do that because of his opinions then he should not be in post.

Science actually works under the very Christian premise that there is an underlying order to be found in the universe so it is not as anti faith as people claim, it just doesn't match the literalist views which few people still hold.

 

3 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

belief in God is evidence of mental instability lol. XD

 

Making hurtful, mocking, generalised statements like this is doing exactly the same thing as the chaplain.

It absolutely proves your point about genuinely free speech over popularist speech, but demonstrates the same level of intolerance, bigotry and lack of acceptance. 😥

I respect others right to not have a faith, but if you are claiming to be more enlightened than someone like Calvert then please do not mock me or call me mentally unstable for having mine.

Link to post
Ellie Jean
1 hour ago, DeeDee said:

Making hurtful, mocking, generalised statements like this is doing exactly the same thing as the chaplain.

It absolutely proves your point about genuinely free speech over popularist speech, but demonstrates the same level of intolerance, bigotry and lack of acceptance. 😥

 


Hmm, not quite, but I see your meaning. Intolerance however would be if I insisted, (as Calvert seemed to), that you be removed or silenced because of your differing beliefs; I'm showing acceptance though by saying I don't feel he should be fired for having what I feel is a stupid opinion based on what I believe to be a fairy-tale. As far as me being bigoted...you're probably right lmao; I genuinely hate religion, largely because I was kidnapped and tortured by Mormons for years between the ages of 12 and 17, and it ended up coloring my whole perception of religious people as extremists bent on world domination lmao. Probably irrational, but oh well; stuff happens and those were the cards I was dealt lol. I literally changed primary care providers because my old one legit gave me a sermon on Wicca and the transgender "epidemic" lol. (Wicca is one of the few religions that doesn't scare the crap out of me because it's basically science, astronomy, and herbalism lol). A secondary reason I switched doctors was because I didn't want the person in charge of my healthcare to believe in any kind of an afterlife, because in my own, warped, twisted mind, believing that death isn't actually THE END would lower their incentive to do a good job, medically speaking lmao. Again, probably not true, but it's the same reason I'm uncomfortable with my airline pilot having a belief in the afterlife; the last thing I want them to do during a mid-air emergency is "let Jesus take the wheel" LOL. 😅

I just plain don't trust the survival instincts of people who don't think death is final; call me crazy lol. XD

PS: Please don't let my bigoted narrow-minded viewpoints offend you in any way, and if you do decide to let them, oh well, what can I say? We live in an offensive world full of viewpoints we don't like lol; gotta learn to live with it; i.e. tolerance. 😇

Link to post
Ellie Jean

PPS: Everyone's mentally unstable lol; it's like the basis for the human condition. 🤪

Link to post

@Ellie Jean 

Honestly I was simply pointing out that two wrongs do not make a right. Something which seems to get lost when the idea of free speech comes up.

 

I am sorry to read of your experiences. It really does make me so sad every time I hear or read of someone like Culvert whose platform and position of authority can cause more damage than good.

 

We are all indoctrinated to the world views of the people around us until we hit our teens and start to question our experiences verses what we have been told.

With the exception of my parents who were the same as everyone else in their generation, the only people who have ever been physically violent towards me have all been loud and proud atheists, but I don't lump everyone in together.

Most people are good, but some people are just dicks. 🤐

It has made me a skeptical optimist. I expect the worst, but hope for the best.

I agree with most of what you are saying. I don't want my mechanic to offer me thoughts and prayers when I take my car into them any more than I want my doctor to hurry me towards end of life care, but I don't understand the American healthcare system where your life seems to be worth the same as your bank balance either.

Whether we refer to the human condition by calling everyone mentally unstable or labelling it as original sin doesn't matter because that is just an argument of semantics that says nobody is perfect, but knowing we aren't is what gives us the opportunity to improve ourselves.

 

We all make judgements about others, but the old addage of speaking to others how we would like to be spoken to ourselves rings true in any society.

 

P.S There is a comedian called Steve Hughes who did a skit on the whole concept of being offended that I think you'd really like.

😁

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Ellie Jean
2 hours ago, DeeDee said:

We are all indoctrinated to the world views of the people around us until we hit our teens and start to question our experiences verses what we have been told.

 


That's one of the few things that me, science, and religion all agree on lol; the notion that free will is an illusion and that nobody's really in control or can be blamed for anything lol. If you ask Science, we're all byproducts of our environment; bombarded with stimuli from the moment we're born which ultimately programs our minds and shapes us into who we'll eventually become; every "choice" we think we make is based on experiences completely outside of our control and our previous "choices" which were also out of our hands all the way back to the original "choices" we made as infants. Sounds a little too bleak for some I suppose lol, but I like it; I find a lot of solace in the fact none of us are really at fault for anything; makes it WAY easier for me to forgive people lol; even the ones who mutilated me as a child; it was totally out of their hands; they were just doing what they felt they had to do; "the next most logical outcome" in a long sequence of events; everything's just action and reaction, cause and effect, one thing leads to the next, etc. etc. lol.

But if you ask the Bible about free will, it says God knew us before we were born, and that he knows all that is, has been, and will be. With that information it's only logical to assume that the whole freedom of choice thing is pure bull, because according to scripture, everything is already predestined, otherwise God wouldn't know what the hell is going to happen five seconds from now, let alone "all that will be" lol. That means no matter what you or anyone else does, you needn't worry, because it literally couldn't have happened any other way.

It was all written in stone the moment Gravity first got it's foothold in the universe and crap started bumping into other crap which bumped into some more crap and so on and so forth; a sort of cosmic domino effect leading all the way to this conversation lol; boggles the mind. XD
 

3 hours ago, DeeDee said:

P.S There is a comedian called Steve Hughes who did a skit on the whole concept of being offended that I think you'd really like.

😁

 

 

 

 


Omg I think I found it lol; on YouTube I think it's called "Steve Hughes - Nothing Happens if You're Offended". 

....I'd post the link....but, ironically, I'm pretty sure someone would get offended. I'll share it via private message. 😅

And you're right; I wanna watch more of his stuff now; seems like a very smart/thought-provoking comedian. One of my other all-time faves is George Carlin; reminded me a bit of him but without the energy lol. XD

Link to post
5 hours ago, DeeDee said:

I am a pastor

You have a GREAT opportunity not only to help others like us, DeeDee, but also to have the compassion for those who are intolerant and establish a positive example for them.  I am wishing you great success in your endeavors❣️

Link to post

@KayC Thanks for your kind message, I hope to have a positive effect, however little. This is the only site where I have actually been open about it because of the site rules, I was genuinely afraid of how people would react to me when I first started questioning my gender. 

Transpulse is one of the few genuinely safe spaces for me to ask questions and simply explore being me.

 

@Ellie Jean Got the pm, right person! 😆 I love so many types of stand up comedy, but observational comedy has a special place in my heart, I think comedians still do the same job now as ye olde time court jesters - which is to point out our hypocrisy, but in a way which we can swallow. Some can be funnier than others but it would be boring if we all had the same tastes.

Link to post
Ellie Jean

F'sure lol; stand-up comedy is the only way I've stayed relatively sane, i.e. kept myself out of jail cells and hospitals for the past 10 years. ...Whew...ten years of not getting caught doing anything crazy enough to get locked up behind bars or in a padded cell, (been to both on numerous occasions in my younger-er days lmao). That's a new record for me; a whole decade of keeping my nose clean...I dunno if I should be proud of myself or embarrassed with a dash of shame lmao. XD

Link to post
Ellie Jean

I'm just not what I used to be lol, smh. XD

Link to post
KimmieElise
8 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

PPS: Everyone's mentally unstable lol; it's like the basis for the human condition. 🤪

You know, this is how I see the whole thing.  We're all just people struggling through this life.  I doubt I've had a sane thought in all my life.  Life has a way of driving you crazy.  Seeing things this way kinda takes the finger pointing out of things, whether you agree with people of faith or not.  We're all broken in some way, and only the most delusional think they aren't.

 

@Ellie Jean Yes, the Bible does say those of faith are "predestined," but also suggests their is a modicum of free will involved, and I would posit without free will there is no such thing as love, making a great portion of the Bible null.  I think the issue is much more complex than just A or B, and the best I have been able to work it out is there is free will in some regards, and in some regards there is not.  Theologians speak of an "effective calling," by God to a relationship with Him, which is a theological way of saying something like an "undeniable summons."  I think there are moments of free will involved in choosing faith, and in a sense our world view becomes our paradigm in which we to some extent become locked.  I would say there are limits to our free will when it comes to choosing our faith or lack thereof (although I would suggest that everyone has a faith in some fashion, being limited creatures, but some faith is not "religious" in the traditional sense), there is, however a great deal of free will and latitude in the way we live out our faith (or lack thereof, if you prefer).  In short, I can't subscribe to a deterministic point of view, therefore absolving responsibility for one's actions.

 

I do agree with you, Calvert is entitled to his opinion.  The one mistake I often see made in and out of church is that people expect Christians to always have fully informed worldviews and not be required to go through a process of learning and growing.  I belong to a church where LGBT people have only recently been accepted, and my pastor told me, "I am only a few years from retirement, and I would have been happy to have gone on into my golden years without having to have dealt with this issue, but when a gay couple asked if they and their children would be welcome in our church, I couldn't think of a good reason to say, 'no.'"  If anyone would have asked him ten or twelve years ago, he might have said otherwise.  It is evident Calvert does not fully understand being trans, and may respond to education. I would never call for someone to be fired or "punished" before having an opportunity to educate them. There needs to be grace in both cultures, and I often find none in either.  Personally, I would rather people be open with their beliefs, rather than suppress them, that way I know where I stand with them.

 

https://www.cbs46.com/news/metro-atlanta-church-faces-backlash-for-accepting-lgbtq-members/article_b7a472ca-6b31-11eb-9303-5b7346bdf20e.html?block_id=997160

 

I think there are also potentially two ways to take your comment to the effect that "belief in God is a sign of mental instability."  One way is only people who are mad would believe in God, but the other is that people who are mad seek help from a higher power in humility.  I would like to think I am in that later category.

Link to post
On 2/14/2021 at 9:34 AM, KimmieElise said:

Yes, the Bible does say those of faith are "predestined," but also suggests their is a modicum of free will involved, and I would posit without free will there is no such thing as love, making a great portion of the Bible null...

...In short, I can't subscribe to a deterministic point of view, therefore absolving responsibility for one's actions.


My brain has too much trouble wrapping itself around the idea that everything is predestined yet there's still free will; it kinda seems like a paradox to me. In regards to love, I don't see freedom of choice as necessary for it at all. Ha, if anything love is almost further proof that we don't have free will; nobody really chooses to fall in love; it just happens because of chemical reactions in the brain causing neurons to fire off, often the result of various hormone and pheromone interactions. 

In regards to the latter part, that's precisely why I personally subscribe to a deterministic point of view lol; BECAUSE it absolves responsibility for one's actions. If I believed in free will...then the people who tortured me for years on end are truly to blame for all the horrible things they did...and I wouldn't be able to let that go; I wouldn't be able to let them "get away with it", and I'd probably go on a killing spree of vengeance lmao. XD

Not believing in free will has been the only way I've been able to forgive them, and let go of my rage. They had no choice but to do what they did; it literally couldn't have happened any other way. It's not their fault. Human beings are animals. Driven by instinct, controlled by their biological clockwork. We all fight, feed, flee, mate, and mark our territories like dogs, and when we die, our bodies rot into the Earth the same way as cattle. We like to think we're so much more evolved than the wild beasts of the jungle, but we all have the same exact habits and motivations when you really think about it lol. We're not nearly as special as much of humanity likes to believe; the claim by some that humans have souls and free will whereas wild animals do not seems like a height of arrogance and ignorance to me; right up there with thinking we're the only intelligent lifeforms in the Universe, or that the Earth is flat and everything in the cosmos is revolving around us lol. 

The (perhaps harsh) reality though is that we are infinitesimally microscopic speck in an infinite and indifferent Universe; the whole world could be wiped out by a solar flare tomorrow, and the cosmos wouldn't even notice lol. Keeping that perspective in  mind has helped me feel a lot more liberated and carefree, in addition to more forgiving and accepting. Nothing really matters, so try not to take things so seriously, and no one can really be blamed for anything, so try not to hold a grudge; it's a waste of emotional energy that could be better spent doing something totally and completely flippin' amazing lol; live life for you, on your own terms, because chances are, it's the only one you'll ever get, and it'd be a shame to spend it either being angry towards other, or pretending to be someone you're not. *hugz* 😇

Link to post
2 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

My brain has too much trouble wrapping itself around the idea that everything is predestined yet there's still free will; it kinda seems like a paradox to me. In regards to love, I don't see freedom of choice as necessary for it at all. Ha, if anything love is almost further proof that we don't have free will; nobody really chooses to fall in love; it just happens because of chemical reactions in the brain causing neurons to fire off, often the result of various hormone and pheromone interactions. 

 

Without getting too technical, and writing a small book here,  there is limited free will described in the Bible.  It is my contention there are three states human beings can be locked into - that of innocence before any choice can or needs to be made, that of allied with and friends with God, and that of trying to be one's own god and enemies of God.  Both of the later states are entered into by volition, but once entered, both states become so foundational to who we are we cannot voluntarily leave those states unless acted upon by an outside force.  The logic, and support for the notion of being one's own God is found in a more in-depth coverage on my blog https://www.minds.com/kimmie_elise/blog/the-great-insurgency-resolving-inconsistencies-1-1130874339670765568 .  This post does not, however deal with the free will/predestination thing.

 

The results of this are we have limited free will to choose our core path, but a great deal of free will as to how we live our those core beliefs and values.  The predestination, as I understand it (because it is a difficult concept to wrap one's head around without coming to some inconsistent or incongruous conclusions) means that all reject God and try to be their own god.  All become locked into this position, and use their free will to choose how they live out that position.  God having seen what was to be, pre-selected some to in some way give them an opportunity to realign with Him, for reasons only He understands.  This is a super complex subject, and hard to effectively cover in a book, much less a blog post or a social media post.  I am just trying to give you a picture of how I got to a point of logically reconciling the Calvinist vs. Armenian conflict.  What I found is one cannot  understand this concept without a great deal of context.  The concept of Predestination/Free Will cannot be understood on its own, without a much larger picture.

 

2 hours ago, Ellie Jean said:

...That's kinda like the bright side of nihilism lol. 😅

 

I never considered nihilism had a bright side.  LOL.

 

Having grown up the child of a mother with narcissistic personality disorder, and having suffered some extreme emotional abuse, I can certainly understand the need to find a mechanism by which one can cope with malevolence.  Jordan Petersen talks extensively about what facing malevolence does to us.

 

From a Christian perspective, love cannot be programmed, either by initial conditions as is the purely agnostic/atheistic mathematical point of view, or by asking the question "Couldn't God have created us all to automatically love Him."  Without volition involved in love, it is nothing more than programming, and has no value nor meaning.  Any parent might agree that they would rather have their children love them because the children want to, than somehow be programmed either organically or mechanically.  It is my belief that in order to have love it was necessary to create humans with free will, and not only that but human beings must exercise such free will at some point to choose other than God, in order to choose Him again.  The state of innocence does not have free will until faced with a moral dilemma and therefore no love.  The state of self-god comes in response to moral dilemma, and the the state of realignment with God comes in response to something more difficult to describe, but involves to some extent God interceding giving us yet another opportunity for free will.  Only in the third state of being realigned with God does love actually exist in its fullest capacity.  This does not mean the self-god cannot love others, but I would say it is an incomplete love in the sense is made within the latitude of how living out the position of being self-god, as opposed to on a level of being aligned with God (not sure how much sense that makes).    In essence, being given free will is pointless unless that free will is exercised.  Once again, super complex topic, and I can't do it justice in a social media/forums post.

 

I am enjoying the discussion, and always enjoy chatting with someone who has thought out their world-view, especially when different than my own.  I always learn something. :)

 

Link to post
  • Admin

Whenever folks get to talking about the 1st Amendment, they overlook the fact that what it does is protect the public from government censorship, and government curtailment of free speech rights.  When a private company or an institution like the Armed Forces curtails speech, there is nothing to prevent that.  Service members work for the government; I don't think they're considered members of the public, so the military can censor their speech.  That's why the former President and other people kicked off of platforms like Twitter & FB have no leg to stand on in court.  Twitter has near total control over what people say on their platform, and who can access that platform.

 

Carolyn Marie

Link to post
2 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

Whenever folks get to talking about the 1st Amendment, they overlook the fact that what it does is protect the public from government censorship, and government curtailment of free speech rights.  When a private company or an institution like the Armed Forces curtails speech, there is nothing to prevent that.

 

First, let me say the Military is not a private institution, but an arm of the government.  I don't completely disagree with you on the notion the Military ought to be curtail free speech, however I think there needs to be a structure of principles behind that, or there is capacity for top Army officials to misuse the power in inappropriate ways.  Don't get me wrong, I am not agreeing with what this Chaplain said.  I simply support the idea there are ethics beyond what is legal or not.

 

2 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

That's why the former President and other people kicked off of platforms like Twitter & FB have no leg to stand on in court.  Twitter has near total control over what people say on their platform, and who can access that platform.

 

So, what I see here is a potential loophole in the system.  I think the potential for abuse is extreme, and I would rather not see such large platforms allied with political sides.  I always consider, if such power can be used to do something I agree with, if things change the same power could be used to do things with which I disagree.  One might agree with, say Trump, being silenced on such a platform, but what happens, and what prevents Biden from also being silenced?  What happens in say four years someone else is at the helm or if say Twitter and Facebook have been superseded by some other companies (I know this unlikely) with a different political bent?  Could they be used to silence Democrats/Left-leaning voters?  I very much believe these huge corporations need to be taken down, and I believe in doing so via a populist, legal, and non-violent means.  I am not the sort which likes regulation, and I am in favor of removing their section 230 protections which I believe will have the net effect of basically shutting them down, because operating will involve too much risk.  Being Libertarian as I am, I find centralization of power to be completely undesirable, and dangerous.  I find Twitter, and more so facebook's practices of extreme privacy invasion (beyond what is justifiable to sell targeted advertising), mutatable one-sided terms of use, and political alignment to be far too much power concentrated into far too few hands, and make no mistake knowledge is power.

 

Am I certain Facebook or Twitter might do something extremely immoral with that power? To some extent I think they have already crossed a number of moral and ethical lines, but I don't know how far they might take it.  I do know, power corrupts, and it is very likely, eventually the power will be used for some greater evil at some point.  Where or when this might happen I don't know.  I would rather pull the plug on the whole dang thing now then risk it ever coming to that, even if the odds are only 1 in 100,000.

 

I think Open Source solutions to providing de-centralized, community policed (by having the code exposed to public inspection), social media platforms is much better than having centralized power.  (I think some people fail to realize most Libertarians are actually opposed to big government and big corporations, or any centralization of massive amounts of power.  I think this is what separates us from both the Right and the Left who would prefer using government control to dominate.)  I think a few small companies and many Fediverse options are more preferable. This is why I subscribe to at least 7 alternative platforms.  I don't like some of the points of view on some of these platforms, but I also like they are openly expressed.  I would rather have my potential enemies out in the open than hidden, which is what regulation Utopian idealism often produces.  A hidden enemy who does not feel they have a voice is one which is far more dangerous than an open opponent.  Gab, for example has outright antisemitists, who openly say nasty things about Jewish people, and openly real white supremacists who will tell you how inferior they think black people are, and Christian Fundamentalist bigots who have called me "Satan" for being trans.  Do I agree with them?  No.  Do I care what they call me?  No.  Am I glad they are open about their views?  Yes.  This gives me a way to engage them, question their ideologies, and maybe educate a few.  The things is, most people are reasonable, and not nearly so extreme.

 

I have to agree with Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  I find those who fear the voices of others to be rather short sighted.  No, I don't think people should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater under most circumstances, but then there is a large difference between much of the free speech being suppressed by Twitter and Facebook and "yelling fire in a crowded theater," which is suppressing potentially productive discourse.  Being more non-partisan, I kinda see things different.  Both sides feel attacked, are defensive as hell, have more in common with each other than they think, and are more reasonable and less radical than their opposition think.

Link to post
17 hours ago, KimmieElise said:

 

First, let me say the Military is not a private institution, but an arm of the government.  I don't completely disagree with you on the notion the Military ought to be curtail free speech, however I think there needs to be a structure of principles behind that, or there is capacity for top Army officials to misuse the power in inappropriate ways.  Don't get me wrong, I am not agreeing with what this Chaplain said.  I simply support the idea there are ethics beyond what is legal or not.

 

 

So, what I see here is a potential loophole in the system.  I think the potential for abuse is extreme, and I would rather not see such large platforms allied with political sides.  I always consider, if such power can be used to do something I agree with, if things change the same power could be used to do things with which I disagree.  One might agree with, say Trump, being silenced on such a platform, but what happens, and what prevents Biden from also being silenced?  What happens in say four years someone else is at the helm or if say Twitter and Facebook have been superseded by some other companies (I know this unlikely) with a different political bent?  Could they be used to silence Democrats/Left-leaning voters?  I very much believe these huge corporations need to be taken down, and I believe in doing so via a populist, legal, and non-violent means.  I am not the sort which likes regulation, and I am in favor of removing their section 230 protections which I believe will have the net effect of basically shutting them down, because operating will involve too much risk.  Being Libertarian as I am, I find centralization of power to be completely undesirable, and dangerous.  I find Twitter, and more so facebook's practices of extreme privacy invasion (beyond what is justifiable to sell targeted advertising), mutatable one-sided terms of use, and political alignment to be far too much power concentrated into far too few hands, and make no mistake knowledge is power.

 

Am I certain Facebook or Twitter might do something extremely immoral with that power? To some extent I think they have already crossed a number of moral and ethical lines, but I don't know how far they might take it.  I do know, power corrupts, and it is very likely, eventually the power will be used for some greater evil at some point.  Where or when this might happen I don't know.  I would rather pull the plug on the whole dang thing now then risk it ever coming to that, even if the odds are only 1 in 100,000.

 

I think Open Source solutions to providing de-centralized, community policed (by having the code exposed to public inspection), social media platforms is much better than having centralized power.  (I think some people fail to realize most Libertarians are actually opposed to big government and big corporations, or any centralization of massive amounts of power.  I think this is what separates us from both the Right and the Left who would prefer using government control to dominate.)  I think a few small companies and many Fediverse options are more preferable. This is why I subscribe to at least 7 alternative platforms.  I don't like some of the points of view on some of these platforms, but I also like they are openly expressed.  I would rather have my potential enemies out in the open than hidden, which is what regulation Utopian idealism often produces.  A hidden enemy who does not feel they have a voice is one which is far more dangerous than an open opponent.  Gab, for example has outright antisemitists, who openly say nasty things about Jewish people, and openly real white supremacists who will tell you how inferior they think black people are, and Christian Fundamentalist bigots who have called me "Satan" for being trans.  Do I agree with them?  No.  Do I care what they call me?  No.  Am I glad they are open about their views?  Yes.  This gives me a way to engage them, question their ideologies, and maybe educate a few.  The things is, most people are reasonable, and not nearly so extreme.

 

I have to agree with Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  I find those who fear the voices of others to be rather short sighted.  No, I don't think people should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater under most circumstances, but then there is a large difference between much of the free speech being suppressed by Twitter and Facebook and "yelling fire in a crowded theater," which is suppressing potentially productive discourse.  Being more non-partisan, I kinda see things different.  Both sides feel attacked, are defensive as hell, have more in common with each other than they think, and are more reasonable and less radical than their opposition think.


Omg...I think I love you LOL. 🤗

Fellow Libertarian/Non-Partisan here. XD

I'm socially liberal but economically and constitutionally conservative.

I've found to my dismay that I kinda ten to tick off everyone on both sides because I can understand a lot of both of their viewpoints lol. 

There need to be more Libertarians; dunno why the Libertarian Party is so small or why we've never had a Libertarian President. Crossing my fingers for #2024 when the country hopefully elects it's first ever Libertarian prez who is actually a true centrist and will unite everyone better than any Democrat or Republican ever has lol.

Link to post
17 hours ago, KimmieElise said:

 

I simply support the idea there are ethics beyond what is legal or not.

 


Same; scientists have actually done studies which prove that humans are born with in innate sense of ethics and justice, with absolutely no pressuring from outside sources, no knowledge of religion, and no concept of philosophy...yet for some reason, when showed a puppet show of a good animal fighting a bad animal, then giving them to the baby to play with, the baby would always "choose" a preference over the "good" puppet as opposed to the "bad" puppet about 9 times out of 10....and I have no idea what the hell the babies who choose the bad guy s their new best friend were thinking; I guess they were just born pure evil LOL. (Or had a far more complicated sense of right and wrong than the other babies did, but most of us don't develop any concept of "morally gray" until we're damn near adults and have been beaten down by life enough to learn that right and wrong isn't always so black and white; that sometimes people do bad things for good reasons, or good things for bad reasons, and that at the end of the day, everyone's the "hero" of their own story; not even the most horrific and sadistic individuals on the planet see themselves as the villain of their story; I'm sure that in their own minds they think they're actually doing the world a favor by trying to murdercate half it's population, ala the Bilderberg Group....or Thanos LOL. 😅

Link to post

I find concepts of "right and wrong" to be arbitrary without reasons behind them.  I long ago came to the conclusion right and wrong were pragmatic and not a separate structure from nature itself and of God.  It didn't take long to for me to see how pragmatic most of the commandments in the Old Testament were for physical, emotional, and social  health.  It was two additional revelations which completely catalyzed things for me.

 

First, the idea I described above of being one's own god, comes from being "created in the image of God."  The Bible indicates we "know and  understand God's invisible attributes from what He has created."  I have identified a number of areas where I think we try to emulate self-godhood.  God is just, and we therefore have a sense of justice.  God is sovereign, and I think all of the self-god's in the world try to take sovereignty over creation to some greater or lesser extent.  God is transcendent to His creation, and I think a lot of scrambling toward the "top" people do, a lot of dreams of rising above the problems of life  (such as winning the lottery) are firmly based in this notion of ascendance.  I think this explains why babies more often choose the "good" puppet over the naughty puppet.

 

The second principle came from my question to answer why God chose to create human beings.  I wrote a blog post which covers t his much more extensive than I can explain here (https://www.minds.com/kimmie_elise/blog/what-on-earth-are-we-here-for-1125577161855635456).  The bottom line is I believe we were created for eternally loving relationships with God, with each other, and with ourselves for eternity.  CS Lewis noted, in Mere Christianity, how we generally hold a common morality across cultures, which is universally recognized but not necessarily codified anywhere.  I contend that morality is based largely in this innate sense we ought to be loved, and we ought to love.  That's why when we are faced with someone, as Lewis puts it "shoving in," ahead of us in a line we protest, "Hey, go to the back of the line!"  We aren't just saying, "Hey, go to the back of the line!"  we are saying, "Hey that was unloving, and I ought to be loved!"

 

Unfortunately, at some point the self-god tends to override the sense of how we ought to love others and what is practical for our own health.  The desire to be say worshiped (in a relative sense) or to have sovereignty (rights of control and ownership) tends to take precedence where the two conflict.

 

In the above is why I believe the Chaplain's words hurt just a little.  Those words diminish us, and show us little respect.  We recognize inherently when someone is showing a favorable comparison to one individual or group by portraying another individual or group as less favorable there is a deliberate unloving act in that disrespect.  When we protest the Chaplain's words we aren't really just saying, "Transphobic moron!"  We are saying, "We ought to be loved just the same as a cis person or soldier."  Such actions are often virtue signaling and playing to one side of a disagreement over others.

 

There is however an exception prudent people ought to consider before simply declaring judgement, and I think this is where the trans community often fails.  First, there are still a lot of cis people who simply don't understand.  There are a lot of Christian cis people who are ignorant, who feel attacked by the trans community, and I think if we are honest there are radical elements of the trans community who are very aggressive and very vocal (and who probably feel attacked as well).   These people often feel like they need to defend themselves, and both sides take on aspirations of Utopian models of complete dominance as a means to achieve safety.  We have to realize a great number of cis people haven't the information they need to deal with what to them is being forced into cognitive dissonance when faced with an otherwise masculine individual (usually at the advent of transition) who says, "I am a woman trapped in a man's body."  To the cis person who has never been educated, never had any experience with a trans person, and who has been surrounded by people who feel attacked by the trans community, the idea of someone being "a woman trapped in a man's body" produces cognitive dissonance (even more so when someone says they are "feline gendered," which is even more un-relatable to the average cis person).  Forced to cope with the cognitive dissonance, people grasp for any explanation which is consistent with their current way of thinking, and resolves the cognitive dissonance ("these are gay guys who want to get straight men into bed."  "These people are dissociative." "These people are illogical and deluded.")  Hanlon's razor says, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."  I would modify this to say "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by being uninformed."

 

I think the trans community is just as guilty of being Cristo-phobic, Conservative-phobic, or Cis-phobic in some ways.  We consistently assume malice where uninformed adequately explains the behavior of others.  We go right for the kill rather for the slightest offense, because that's the best way to protect ourselves from what we perceive to be painful attacks.  We want people punished in the maximum possible way, and the cancel culture we are participating in as a community is the same weaponization of acceptance we have experienced from churches over the decades, which we have decried as wrong.  We are every bit as guilty in may ways as those we call transphobic of the same offenses.  Sometimes offering an olive branch is much more productive than swinging a cudgel.  This is why I jumped into this conversation is to raise the issue of whether or not we ought to be a little wiser in whether or not we attack or go to the table and negotiate peace.

 

Personally, I'd like to know a lot more about Calvert before I judge him on the content of one Facebook post.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Who's Online   11 Members, 0 Anonymous, 59 Guests (See full list)

    • David K.
    • Jackie C.
    • Ann W
    • Sandra6sandy9sand
    • Drayse
    • BlueNails
    • lauraincolumbia
    • Samantha2020
    • Cyndee
    • Jani
    • MaryEllen
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics With Zero Replies

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      73,302
    • Total Posts
      674,577
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      8,134
    • Most Online
      8,356

    AnewStart21
    Newest Member
    AnewStart21
    Joined
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Carolyn Marie
      Carolyn Marie
      (67 years old)
    2. Makayla2019
      Makayla2019
    3. SteamGirlEva
      SteamGirlEva
      (31 years old)
  • Posts

    • KymmieL
      Cool, When can I move in? JK.   Had some water works yesterday afternoon. we were discussing well the wife was talking I was just Uh, Huh. most of the time. then she hit on a point that started it. My oldest has barely brought his family to our house. My grandson has been here maybe 3 times. while my granddaughter has never been to our house.   My wife reminded me that our oldest son doesn't like our home. the way it is kept maybe I don't know. Maybe because it is in a low income apts. Oh, He has gone to his in laws who live about 100 miles away. Stayed a week or so. never here. Heck, I think he wouldn't visit if we lived next door to his in laws.   My oldest is so much like my father. When we lived back in MI. he visited our home. maybe 5 times.   While our middle son has been here with his family plenty. Which I am so grateful.   Have a good day all, I will try.   Kymmie
    • Drayse
      Bald can be beautiful, if you embrace like you have. You look great, girl!
    • Maid In Bedlam
      I got one of those little bods in the top left corner. I to hang things from him. Small world huh?🙂
    • Confused1
      Hi SaraphimL, Welcome to TransPulse. It is so good to have support from friends and family. You will find support here as well.   Hugs, Mike
    • Willow
      Good morning    coffee was good today.  It’s my E shot day. I always look forward to that.    I have a dentist appointment today which is always fun.  Strained my back yesterday trying to start my pressure washer.  It would run. Eventually I broke the starter cord.  At least that didn’t happen when I was really giving it a hard pull.  I’m trying to “repair” three golf cart batteries.  I have three that are just fine and three that discharge rather quickly. I am running a repair cycle on a battery charger. High 70s here!  Finally winter is breaking its grip.   hugs to all   Willow  
    • SheenaT
      Welcome. I'm new too and feel welcomed.
    • Charlize
      Hi Tamsyn.  Indeed you are not alone.  just knowing that helped me.  We can support and understand each other as few are able to do.  Glad you've joined us.  As another bald person i've grown to enjoy my wigs.  Kinda like wearing a hat and warts and cosy in the winter.  Your picture is lovely without one!  Enjoy.   Hugs,   Charlize
    • lauraincolumbia
      This is so familiar!  If you had said nylons instead of tights, then I might have written this.
    • Shay
      @Charlize wise words from a wise woman. "Right on."
    • SheenaT
    • Charlize
      This woman doesn't make me angry as much as sad.  Having lived through a time where "love it or leave it" was a constant theme i'll survive this stuff.  She is a pitiful person!  We must expect pushback.  In the last few years we have made awesome progress towards being understood and accepted.  Not surprising that that has become difficult for some.  As Trump moves into the background these folks will hopefully crawl back under their rocks. In the meantime "keep on truck'n"   Hugs,   Charlize
    • SheenaT
      😉
    • Shay
      I guess I actually disobeyed my first rule about people like her. Bad press is generally better than good press and her intolerance and notirity grows. I have found the best remedy for these types is to give them NO PRESS. And so I am sorry I brought her up. She does not deserve extra space here and I would like to see this post removed...although on the bright side I do like and appreciate all your views and they are all valid and good arguments for giving freedom of speech. Had the press lived by my rule she could do whatever she want and not get what I believe she wanted all along....press and her name in the news. Sorry I disobeyed my own rule.
    • 2beBreanna
      So you become intolerant.  See where that becomes an issue?  If no one is free to think differently there will never be advances in society. 
    • DeeDee
      Hi Tamsyn, pleased to meet you! It was such a relief to see other folk who had done the same things as I had for years!  

Contact TransPulse

TransPulse can be contacted in the following ways:

Email: Click Here.

To report an error on this page.

Legal

Your use of this site is subject to the following rules and policies, whether you have read them or not.

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Community Rules

Hosting

Upstream hosting for TransPulse provided by QnEZ.

Sponsorship

Special consideration for TransPulse is kindly provided by The Breast Form Store.
×
×
  • Create New...