How is this new? I recall people talking about "personal branding" over twenty years ago. I disliked the notion then, and it hasn't grown on me over time.
He wrote some thoughtful and well-researched articles on medical malpractice, and this mob descended on him with death threats and other abusive and violent vitriol, simply because they didn't like the conclusions he reached from his investigations, and that he was publicly expressing these to a broad audience.
Then again, then someone's entire world view rests on what is fundamentally a lie, perhaps it's not surprising to see such excessive reactions when reality is exposed. Not that this is any excuse of course.
Who should I believe? A wiki that links to sources to back its opinions, or some rando on HN?
Oh, and did you create this account just to reply to little old me? I'm flattered.
> He wrote some thoughtful and well-researched articles on medical malpractice
https://glaad.org/gap/jesse-singal/ suggests that his articles were biased, and used rare cases of trans kids who changed their minds while ignoring the vast majority of trans folk who did not regret transitioning.
> this mob descended on him with death threats and other abusive and violent vitriol
You mean the sort of abuse that many people online heap upon trans and autistic folks for fun? You'll have to pardon my lack of sympathy for somebody who, to my knowledge, has yet to have their door kicked down at zero dark thirty by a SWAT team at the behest of a transgender person's false report.
> Then again, then someone's entire world view rests on what is fundamentally a lie, perhaps it's not surprising to see such excessive reactions when reality is exposed. Not that this is any excuse of course.
As far as I'm concerned, this is basically anybody who believes in God, or that biological sex and gender are the same thing.
> Who should I believe? A wiki that links to sources to back its opinions, or some rando on HN?
That wiki is an atrocious source. It's deceptive, uncharitable, openly biased, hate site that exists mostly to vent spleen against anyone that the authors don't like.
Note the paltering all throughout that article on Singal, showing that the authors are clearly intending to mislead.
> https://glaad.org/gap/jesse-singal/ suggests that his articles were biased, and used rare cases of trans kids who changed their minds while ignoring the vast majority of trans folk who did not regret transitioning.
Another opinion piece. Have you actually read any of his articles yourself?
> As far as I'm concerned, this is basically anybody who believes in God
I agree, the gender identity belief system is very cult-like and dogmatic, and accepts no dissent - just like religion.
The Economist runs articles that are skeptical of transgenderism, so does The New York Times. That's one thing.
Singal seeks out specific members of the transgender community to harass. His aim, I think, is to provoke transgender people into doing stupid things like making death threats so he can turn around and write articles on another platform about the death threats he gets. Like a schoolyard bully he has one eye on the rules and is careful to not quite cross the line that he gets kicked out. He confuses people by crossing over activities on different platforms, like if you see that blog post he does not show all of the things that he did to provoke people. On X, for instance, he calls for people to dogpile on people at Bluesky, etc.
First I heard about him there were people on Mastodon who said people were leaving Bluesky because Singal hadn't been kicked out. I did see his Bluesky and it was exactly what I expected and I muted him the same way I mute anybody who blames their problems on cis people.
> Singal seeks out specific members of the transgender community to harass.
No he doesn't. In some of his work, he reports on what prominent voices of that community have to say. Like any journalist. And sometimes, he responds when they lie about what he's written in his articles, or exhibit abusive behaviors against others.
Now, you might frame this as Singal "harassing" Caraballo, but if you look at what he's written, he's reporting on Caraballo who is the one actually harassing and doxxing.
There are some very, very toxic figures in that community, and the only reason they started to come after Singal is that his journalism challenges their dogma.
Yeah, Jesse Singal is to transgender people what Andy Ngo is to anti-fascist activists. They want to get their mendacious asses kicked so that they can play the martyr. They're both assholes.
He's some kind of journalist, but from what I've read of him he seems like the sort of man who lives in unreasoning and unrelenting terror that the guy in the stall next to his might have a vagina instead of a penis. He's a minor hero to right-wingers because he feeds into their prejudices concerning transgender people.
Well, if it ain't a Nazi bar it's certainly the Hotel California. I'd happily delete my account if that were permitted, but it isn't, and I'm sure as hell not going to email the management and say "pretty please".
Bluesky will be old and busted, monetized and enshittified.
Then all of the "interesting" people will pioneer some new proprietary platform instead of building their own websites and DMing each other on Signal, though some might try the Fediverse again, only to abandon it because (like Lance Ulanoff) they couldn't find William Shatner there.
> The sad part is that the U.S. has a huge population of people that still don’t think anyone else’s rights to the pursuit of happiness and peace take precedence over their constitutional right to own guns, and if Sandy Hook didn’t move the needle then I don’t see what will.
Sandy Hook is just one reason why I don't own a AR-15 or other semiautomatic firearms. I'm of the opinion that no civilian (police included) needs a semiautomatic.
But I've got a .30 lever-action rifle. I usually only load it at the range. I usually only fire it at the range. I've never even aimed my weapon at another human being, despite occasionally being tempted.
I see no reason why I should allow my rights to be abridged because other people abuse theirs. The needs of the many might outweigh the needs of the few, but I do not accept that they can outweigh the rights of the individual.
This already happens, actually. At the range I go to, you can rent fully automatic weapons and they'll walk it out with you, and for a non-trivial cost of usually $1/round, you can spray the range down. You can also rent a number of more conventional weapons to try as well.
Seriously, though, reducing work hours globally might also help with those low birthrates with which Elon Musk, JD Vance, and other rich white dudes and their bootlickers are obsessed.
People don't have time or energy to fuck, let alone raise kids, if they're working 40+ hours/week while also commuting and possibly doing a side hustle since their main job doesn't pay enough.
It stands to reason that guns and ammo should not need a "Keep out of reach of children" label, yet they plainly do since parents are obviously leaving loaded firearms where their kids can get at them.
I know it's a joke (and I appreciate it), but it also makes you think how crazy it is. I would absolutely happily restrict everyone's access to guns to get them out of then hands of the psychos, and then jump through some hoops to get mine (if I really needed some).
