I go through this with my niece on a regular basis, her: "I am a man".
Me: No you aren't.
Her: That is transphobic, I am a man because I say I am a man.
Me: I am a billionaire.
Her: That is ridiculous, you don't have a billion dollars.
Me: And you have none of the physical features of a man, isn't that the same?
Her: I don't have room in my life for transphobes.
Me: Surrounding yourself with people who will support your fantasy isn't going to make it any more real than me having all the monopoly money Hasbro has ever made is going to make me a billionaire.
Being a man isn't a state of mind, though that can be part of it, it is a physical reality.
My favorite is when abortion comes up. I tell her she isn't allowed to have an opinion because she is a "man". Pisses her right off even though she said exactly the same thing to me before she decided she was a man.
There is a degree of state of mind to it. Take one of the beta males and his simping attitude and while he may technically be male, he will never be a man. Like trans women, men role playing women aren't really women, they aren't really men either because of their state of mind. Add to that not really a man group those who assault women and children and you would be off to a good start to start using them in landfills.
(This is why I distinguish between "respect" and "courtesy" -- courtesy should be extended unless there's a reason not to, because that's how society gets along. Respect should not be extended unless earned. They are not the same thing.)
The entitlement of this half man to demand respect says it all - respect cannot be commanded, it is deserved. I propose that we ignore him and his kind instead. (I know it’s easier said than done).
Totally. What well-respected person has ever felt the need to say "you WILL respect me!" The demand itself is psychological proof that a person knows he isn't respected.
The gap between 'courtesy' and 'respect' is nowhere NEAR as wide as the gap between "tolerance" and "acceptance".
I will tolerate a whole bunch of bullshit ([X] say)- in that I don't physically attack anyone who makes noises about [X]. I make that decision pretty much every day (thankfully I don't get out much).
The fact that I refrain from bludgeoning such folk, should not be construed - and does not imply - that I ACCEPT that [X] is true.
To TOLERATE a thing, is to put up with it, knowing it to be a bad thing.
To ACCEPT a thing, is to think that the thing is not bad.
As a very-relevant example: we (_The Lovely_ and I) routinely walk to a nearby café for lunch on the beach (we live 50m from the beach).
I don't TOLERATE people who walk three-abreast on the sidewalk: I will hold my line, and "lower the shoulder" and knock people out of my way if needs be. I don't give a fuck if the person who cops the shoulder is a kid: I will have sharp words with the attending adults, of the sort that my parents would have had with me if I got in peoples' road.
_The Lovely_ routinely upbraids me for being 'rude' when I refuse to walk in the gutter, or to chide imbeciles for trying to force me to do so: she's TOLERANT, you see.
FUCK TOLERANCE. I will not tolerate a motherfucking thing. 'Tolerance' as a mechanism by which societally-dysgenic behaviours ramify.
I guess that's why I don't have to lie awake at night, worrying about 'Suddenly'.
One of my favorite teachers growing up, when i thanked her for giving me an A replied "i didn't give you an A, you earned it". Can you imagine a teacher saying that today?
These people are all insane and stupid. They are signature aspect of participants in all revolutionary movements. Look the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions and all the very bizarre people in each and ideas that they had were made into laws, no matter how preposterous. All going against centuries of knowledge and science but were pleasing to the leaders of these movements. Check out Trofim Lysenko, who served Stalin. He killed millions with all sorts of ridiculous theories of biology and agriculture. These same type people are emptying our language and society of coherence and truth. This will not end well for us, because our adversaries don't suffer from this madness.
I am old enough to remember when "putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum" was usually used rhetorically. Now its an observation about yesterday's news.
Oh, it's kinda like Obama saying that "when human life begins" is "above his pay grade." Never stopped him from having an opinion about banning abortion at any particular point, though, did it? I think we all know: the elision of the subject of discussion is a feature, not a bug. He could have been honest and said that a new human being is created during the process of fertilization, but he didn't view it as in the state's interest to defend that human being's right to life until X point, but any time you use actual words with actual meanings, you run the risk of seeming like something other than an eminently reasonable guy with whom no one can disagree. So the technique is to obfuscate and talk about nothing for as long as it takes for the public's attention to move away, and then you call for the vote on more billions for a proxy war, or CRT textbooks in every school, or whatever. Tiresome.
No one asked him about which crusade, by whom towards where and when I presume?
I don't even have to guess he didn't mention the preceding 500 years of constant moslem aggression, murder, rape, enslavement and genocide against christians all over the Levant, North Africa, South East Europe and neighbouring areas, do I?
At least when you have dueling ideas, you can have conversations and you can find solutions. When the other side has no ideas, just endlessly repeated phrases akin to religious mantras and magical incantations, you have nowhere to go.
I remember seeing an interview of pro choice women. The reporter asked about infanticide. Should the mother be able to kill the baby at one day? One week? One month? One year? And the answer, said over and over, " it's always the woman's right to choose." Maddening. It's as if they stick their fingers in their ears and sing, "I'm not thinking. Stop trying to make me think."
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it twice. We’re being run by idiots, tyrants and tyrannical idiots. Cabinet members that don’t know squat about how to competently do their jobs, judges on confirmation hearing that have no idea what a Brady motion is (look up that one for a hoot). Bottom line, they can’t define it, better yet, won’t define it (assault weapon, vaccines, science, man, woman, natural immunity, the list goes on). Because IT is what they say IT is.
Apparently, "woman" is the only thing that is self defining. Do we say "a chair is any piece of furniture that's a chair." Of course not, but that's the logic of the left.
How long is a piece of string ... how big is a hill ... how far is a smidge ... what is a woman.
It's off the charts what we're witnessing. While we went about enjoying our lives living like pampered self-entitled prats (God bless the British and their words), look at what quality of individuals filled up our seats in government.
It's mind-blowing. This isn't the Peter Principle in real-time. It's something worse. These people don't even rise to reach Peter.
A friend asked why the feminists don't seem to care about men winning against females in swimming and other sports. Your answer is fitting... because it never was about women, it's about rejecting the God of the Bible.
He was talking to me asking where are the feminists - why are they standing up for women who are losing scholarships etc to men who say they are women.
They are over on Twitter and other social media being demonized as "TERFs" and invited to "choke on my fat female d!ck." There are loads of second wave feminists being hounded into the ground by aggressive men LARPing as women, complete with anti-social sexualized abuse of a sort that would land a cis-hetero man in jail if he dared to express it in any public forum. Don't blame traditional feminists for this aberration. Whatever bad policy they may have supported, there is no justification for the abuse they are now suffering from this autogynephilic fetish cult.
I see a lot of people I would call feminists, my wife included, going along with the trans program. I think they are able to ignore the obvious problems because they are not directly impacted. This is just like a lot of progressive nonsense views held by upper middle class suburbanites. She doesn't seem to mind that her collection of principles is deeply inconsistent and therefore impossible to realize, because realizing them is something that happens in the future. Logical inconsistency is apparently not seen as a problem, only feelings of the intersectionally oppressed matter. It's the destruction of sense and meaning to make way for totalitarian slavery of the mind.
This abject ignorance is a particular form of gaslighting. The idea is to prevent any kind of informed discussion. Usually the gaslighter embraces a certain dogma. In this case however, we're dealing with totally empty vessels.
Hahaha... this guy thinks I have to respect him? A man in makeup? Our country is so stupid and so is he. Come to my house and see.... respect? Barfola . Never
I go through this with my niece on a regular basis, her: "I am a man".
Me: No you aren't.
Her: That is transphobic, I am a man because I say I am a man.
Me: I am a billionaire.
Her: That is ridiculous, you don't have a billion dollars.
Me: And you have none of the physical features of a man, isn't that the same?
Her: I don't have room in my life for transphobes.
Me: Surrounding yourself with people who will support your fantasy isn't going to make it any more real than me having all the monopoly money Hasbro has ever made is going to make me a billionaire.
Being a man isn't a state of mind, though that can be part of it, it is a physical reality.
My favorite is when abortion comes up. I tell her she isn't allowed to have an opinion because she is a "man". Pisses her right off even though she said exactly the same thing to me before she decided she was a man.
Denying reality is one of the hallmarks of the totalitarian mindset. And the insane.
Like a cat toying with a mouse... lol
💬 a (wo)man isn't a state of mind 🔥
...or is it? 😁
There is a degree of state of mind to it. Take one of the beta males and his simping attitude and while he may technically be male, he will never be a man. Like trans women, men role playing women aren't really women, they aren't really men either because of their state of mind. Add to that not really a man group those who assault women and children and you would be off to a good start to start using them in landfills.
"You will respect us."
Or *what*, motherf***er?
(This is why I distinguish between "respect" and "courtesy" -- courtesy should be extended unless there's a reason not to, because that's how society gets along. Respect should not be extended unless earned. They are not the same thing.)
The entitlement of this half man to demand respect says it all - respect cannot be commanded, it is deserved. I propose that we ignore him and his kind instead. (I know it’s easier said than done).
Totally. What well-respected person has ever felt the need to say "you WILL respect me!" The demand itself is psychological proof that a person knows he isn't respected.
Bullying. Straight up.
The gap between 'courtesy' and 'respect' is nowhere NEAR as wide as the gap between "tolerance" and "acceptance".
I will tolerate a whole bunch of bullshit ([X] say)- in that I don't physically attack anyone who makes noises about [X]. I make that decision pretty much every day (thankfully I don't get out much).
The fact that I refrain from bludgeoning such folk, should not be construed - and does not imply - that I ACCEPT that [X] is true.
To TOLERATE a thing, is to put up with it, knowing it to be a bad thing.
To ACCEPT a thing, is to think that the thing is not bad.
As a very-relevant example: we (_The Lovely_ and I) routinely walk to a nearby café for lunch on the beach (we live 50m from the beach).
I don't TOLERATE people who walk three-abreast on the sidewalk: I will hold my line, and "lower the shoulder" and knock people out of my way if needs be. I don't give a fuck if the person who cops the shoulder is a kid: I will have sharp words with the attending adults, of the sort that my parents would have had with me if I got in peoples' road.
_The Lovely_ routinely upbraids me for being 'rude' when I refuse to walk in the gutter, or to chide imbeciles for trying to force me to do so: she's TOLERANT, you see.
FUCK TOLERANCE. I will not tolerate a motherfucking thing. 'Tolerance' as a mechanism by which societally-dysgenic behaviours ramify.
I guess that's why I don't have to lie awake at night, worrying about 'Suddenly'.
Very good point
A courtesy is given, respect is earned.
One of my favorite teachers growing up, when i thanked her for giving me an A replied "i didn't give you an A, you earned it". Can you imagine a teacher saying that today?
I passionately don't extend courtesy to 'stack overlords: not allowing pics in comments constitutes a purebred capital offence 🤪
s3.memeshappen.com/memes/no-respect-this-means-war-meme-1732.jpg
That last one, with the NZ PM... "I wasn't expecting that question, so it's not something I've pre-formulated an answer on."
Damn, kinda saying the quiet part out loud there.
These people are all insane and stupid. They are signature aspect of participants in all revolutionary movements. Look the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions and all the very bizarre people in each and ideas that they had were made into laws, no matter how preposterous. All going against centuries of knowledge and science but were pleasing to the leaders of these movements. Check out Trofim Lysenko, who served Stalin. He killed millions with all sorts of ridiculous theories of biology and agriculture. These same type people are emptying our language and society of coherence and truth. This will not end well for us, because our adversaries don't suffer from this madness.
Danny Huckabee
I am old enough to remember when "putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum" was usually used rhetorically. Now its an observation about yesterday's news.
Oh, it's kinda like Obama saying that "when human life begins" is "above his pay grade." Never stopped him from having an opinion about banning abortion at any particular point, though, did it? I think we all know: the elision of the subject of discussion is a feature, not a bug. He could have been honest and said that a new human being is created during the process of fertilization, but he didn't view it as in the state's interest to defend that human being's right to life until X point, but any time you use actual words with actual meanings, you run the risk of seeming like something other than an eminently reasonable guy with whom no one can disagree. So the technique is to obfuscate and talk about nothing for as long as it takes for the public's attention to move away, and then you call for the vote on more billions for a proxy war, or CRT textbooks in every school, or whatever. Tiresome.
Obama. Now there's a character. If South Park would turn Terence & Philip into a trio, I'd add him to it.
I remember him giving a lame, superficial, hopelessly sophomoric speech about the Crusades.
"The Crusades, however......" Ahhh sshhaadap!
No one asked him about which crusade, by whom towards where and when I presume?
I don't even have to guess he didn't mention the preceding 500 years of constant moslem aggression, murder, rape, enslavement and genocide against christians all over the Levant, North Africa, South East Europe and neighbouring areas, do I?
“ The boat between human islands is language, and ours is sinking”—so good!
For those who value truth, words are tools of communication. For sociopaths, words are weapons.
Yes.
"Because there’s nothing in there."
But oh how much damage all that nothing causes.
At least when you have dueling ideas, you can have conversations and you can find solutions. When the other side has no ideas, just endlessly repeated phrases akin to religious mantras and magical incantations, you have nowhere to go.
I remember seeing an interview of pro choice women. The reporter asked about infanticide. Should the mother be able to kill the baby at one day? One week? One month? One year? And the answer, said over and over, " it's always the woman's right to choose." Maddening. It's as if they stick their fingers in their ears and sing, "I'm not thinking. Stop trying to make me think."
It's a classic thought-terminating cliche.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9
You said “think” when they routinely want to tell you how they “feel”. In this case thinking about it might make them feel bad. A double whammy
Great explanation! (Sadly, even on this page I see people giving into emotion and trying to elicit the same.)
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it twice. We’re being run by idiots, tyrants and tyrannical idiots. Cabinet members that don’t know squat about how to competently do their jobs, judges on confirmation hearing that have no idea what a Brady motion is (look up that one for a hoot). Bottom line, they can’t define it, better yet, won’t define it (assault weapon, vaccines, science, man, woman, natural immunity, the list goes on). Because IT is what they say IT is.
Brady v. Maryland is....about....the Second Amendment? A federal magistrate, no less. Another brilliantly simple John Kennedy takedown.
More to the point, IT is *deliberately* left vague, because then they can play endless motte-and-bailey games to trip up their opponents.
8 more years of this and we may never come back.
We're staring at the abyss
Apparently, "woman" is the only thing that is self defining. Do we say "a chair is any piece of furniture that's a chair." Of course not, but that's the logic of the left.
How long is a piece of string ... how big is a hill ... how far is a smidge ... what is a woman.
I hate this postmodern world.
Jesus wept.
We’re not supposed to question them. They are the elite expert class. Now pipe down and give me another booster.
It's off the charts what we're witnessing. While we went about enjoying our lives living like pampered self-entitled prats (God bless the British and their words), look at what quality of individuals filled up our seats in government.
It's mind-blowing. This isn't the Peter Principle in real-time. It's something worse. These people don't even rise to reach Peter.
The people at the top just keep becoming more appalling and empty. I don't know how we get worse from here, but I assume we do.
I don't know but here's a nice pic (and article) from Canada:
https://www.rebelnews.com/ontario_ndp_to_table_legislation_protecting_drag_shows_from_protests
/licks Spumoni imagining Chris's face.
It's a war against God's created order, a fight against objective truth.
A friend asked why the feminists don't seem to care about men winning against females in swimming and other sports. Your answer is fitting... because it never was about women, it's about rejecting the God of the Bible.
Not sure who your "friend" was talking to, but I doubt it was a feminist. I've never heard that ridiculous argument. I'm a feminist.
He was talking to me asking where are the feminists - why are they standing up for women who are losing scholarships etc to men who say they are women.
They are over on Twitter and other social media being demonized as "TERFs" and invited to "choke on my fat female d!ck." There are loads of second wave feminists being hounded into the ground by aggressive men LARPing as women, complete with anti-social sexualized abuse of a sort that would land a cis-hetero man in jail if he dared to express it in any public forum. Don't blame traditional feminists for this aberration. Whatever bad policy they may have supported, there is no justification for the abuse they are now suffering from this autogynephilic fetish cult.
I see a lot of people I would call feminists, my wife included, going along with the trans program. I think they are able to ignore the obvious problems because they are not directly impacted. This is just like a lot of progressive nonsense views held by upper middle class suburbanites. She doesn't seem to mind that her collection of principles is deeply inconsistent and therefore impossible to realize, because realizing them is something that happens in the future. Logical inconsistency is apparently not seen as a problem, only feelings of the intersectionally oppressed matter. It's the destruction of sense and meaning to make way for totalitarian slavery of the mind.
Not blaming. Just commenting.
Correction why aren't feminists standing up for women?
This abject ignorance is a particular form of gaslighting. The idea is to prevent any kind of informed discussion. Usually the gaslighter embraces a certain dogma. In this case however, we're dealing with totally empty vessels.
DR. GASLIGHT. A doctor causes his patient to question her own sanity. Listen to Turfseer’s new song. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/dr-gaslight
Hahaha... this guy thinks I have to respect him? A man in makeup? Our country is so stupid and so is he. Come to my house and see.... respect? Barfola . Never