There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

[MarcusAu]

I'd not heard the term 'moon cricket' until recently.

Who comes up with this shit?

In any case:
Germans - Krauts, Jerries, Huns...
English / British - Roast Biffs, Red Coats, P.O.M.E.s
Pacific Islanders - PIs, Coconuts
Americans - Yanks, Sceptics
Canadians - Snow Mexicans

[Steersman]

Q, What's the difference between a jew and a meat pie?
A, A meat pie doesn't scream when it goes in the oven.

Q, What do you call a jew who says he's skint?
A, A liar.

Q, How do you fit 1 million jews into a volkswagon beetle?
A, 2 in the front, 2 in the back and the rest in the ash tray.

LoL.

Somewhat apropos of which (first time this week Matt! ;-) ), ICYMI, an interesting post from Cathy Young on the firing of Roseanne Barr, and quote therefrom:

And yet a cautionary note is in order: Just because provocative humor can cross the line of decency doesn’t validate those who want provocative humor to be more aggressively policed. A few months ago, Barr came under attack from journalist Kurt Eichenwald and other Twitter progressives for a photo in which she was dressed as Hitler, with a fake mustache and a Nazi uniform, standing in front of an oven and holding a baking sheet with partially burned gingerbread-man cookies.

https://assets.forwardcdn.com/images/33 ... 337149.jpg

Barr is, of course, Jewish, and the photo appeared in 2009 in the now-defunct edgy Jewish magazine HEEB as part of an exploration of whether the taboo on Holocaust jokes still had power. When some people pointed this out in defense of Barr, Eichenwald fired back that everyone associated with the photo, including the magazine, “should be shut down, fired, and canceled.”

Not sure that many people aren't all too quick to get their knickers in a twist over various "racist" jokes, though, somewhat suprisingly, Young still insists that Barr's joke about Jarrett qualified as that:

ABC has cancelled the top-rated show’s second season after Barr posted a shockingly racist tweet comparing former Barack Obama aide Valerie Jarrett to an offspring of The Muslim Brotherhood (to which the far-right rumor mill has long linked Jarrett) and “Planet of the Apes.” Jarret is black.

As Young pointed out, it's a staple of far-right nutcases like Alex Jones that Jarrett is in bed with the 'Hood, and don't see that Jarrett is stereotypically black. And even if she was, so what?

Standards of physical beauty or attractiveness seem more or less universal, and no race has a particular lock on them. Reminds me that someone asked whether one would prefer to make it with Harry Belafonte or Don Knotts, with Halle Berry or Phyllis Diller, even if such tends to be more skin-deep than not.

[Brive1987]

<snippity-doo-dah>

I also struggle to see how you can effectively divorce values from the social identity from which they derive and over which they have sway. So your question is poorly formed: effective values come from cogent identity.

Kind of think you're conflating superficial aspects of "social identity" with more fundamental ones.

Maybe some of those superficial ones are derived or arise from the latter, but they seem inessential. Many Western nations have a broad range of different superficial aspects - clothing, dances, patterns of language and other forms of expression - but they're secondary to such "essential" things as the rule of law and the separation of church & state. Elevating the former over the latter or losing sight of the difference - as you and people like Faith Goldy seem to be doing - really doesn't help anybody. More part of the problem than of the solution.
[/quote]

“Superficial” is a poisoning of the well. And the simple separation of essential vs superficial is a poor model for a complex social eco-system.

We have basic (shared) fundamental legal and political concepts that date back to separation of powers from Royalty. These only partly define the specific and unique values that underpin national and cultural identities.

We have jazz hands 🤗 general stretch targets from the enlightenment, honoured more in omission than adoption. Like “freedom of speech”. Church and state separation is variable in practice, especially when church infuses society which then defines state.

I think your critique needs some more work.

[Brive1987]

Oops.

[KiwiInOz]

I could of NZ specific ones.

What's the Maori word for car aerial? Coat-Hanger.

snip racist shit

That would be spelled Ko Tanga in Te Reo.

[Brive1987]

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

https://i.imgur.com/FRBG9Qu.png

[Bhurzum]

22 years? Good golly - Miss Molly, hadn't realized you'd been in that long. In the photo you posted way back of you, I assume, on a tank you didn't look a day over 18.

Yup. The image in question, sat upon the wing of C/S Alpha 32, is a 19 year old Bhurzum - fresh out of the sausage machine, still got my factory stickers on, utterly clueless but determined to make my mark. I came home from that place (Op GRANBY) with quite a few scars, some of which still itch to this day.

By "ragheads" I assume you mean Muslims since Sikhs/ghurkas - the 7/11 people as opposed to the 9/11 ones - seem to have some cred in the British army.

Indeed. You'll be hard pushed to find anyone in uniform who genuinely hates Sikhs or ghurkas. We might give each other shit, strong shit, but it's just banter. Same with the English (poofs), the Irish (thick cunts) and the Welsh (sheep shaggers) - if we can't get you on religion, we'll get you on nationality.

In any case, was wondering whether you were back in the land of the living, ready to do the Iron-Man competition. :-) Seem to recollect you'd been badly wracked up in a fall 6 or 8 months ago.

I'm fucked beyond repair, dude. As the doc says, for me, the war is over. I have a catalogue of problems - some small, others not-so-small and even though I can still cut around the place (heaping derision upon all that I see), my range and abilities are greatly reduced. No more climbing, long hikes or high-impact shenanigans. It's all good though, at Regimental/Military gatherings, people assume my hobbling is due to combat injury and force alcohol into me. I don't have the heart to tell them... ;)

(Are "stolen hangovers" a thing?)

[Bhurzum]

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a6/d7/0e/a6d7 ... akfast.jpg

[Steersman]

<snippity-doo-dah>

....
I also struggle to see how you can effectively divorce values from the social identity from which they derive and over which they have sway. So your question is poorly formed: effective values come from cogent identity.

Kind of think you're conflating superficial aspects of "social identity" with more fundamental ones.

Maybe some of those superficial ones are derived or arise from the latter, but they seem inessential. Many Western nations have a broad range of different superficial aspects - clothing, dances, patterns of language and other forms of expression - but they're secondary to such "essential" things as the rule of law and the separation of church & state. Elevating the former over the latter or losing sight of the difference - as you and people like Faith Goldy seem to be doing - really doesn't help anybody. More part of the problem than of the solution.

“Superficial” is a poisoning of the well. And the simple separation of essential vs superficial is a poor model for a complex social eco-system.

Not really - more a case of trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, to coin a phrase. And to argue that it is a straightforward concept that there might well be "essential and superficial elements" in a "complex social eco-system"; what is tricky is deciding which is which. Not knowing, for example, how a car works might lead a person to wonder whether sidewalls are essential to its operation - leading to "cargo-cult science". But that is different from acknowledging that there might well be items that could be removed, that are non-essential, without seriously limiting the functions the system is capable of.

Though the concept and "philosophy" of essentialism is somewhat "problematic":

Essentialism is the view that every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function.[1] In early Western thought Plato's idealism held that all things have such an "essence"—an "idea" or "form". In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it "make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing". ....

Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. Plato, in the Parmenides Dialogue, depicts Socrates questioning the notion, suggesting that if we accept the idea that every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence to be beautiful or just, we must also accept the "existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt". ....

Rather doubt it is "essential" to the existence of Australia that y'all have access to copious quantities of Foster's since many other Western countries manage to function along the same lines without that. But that seems to part of the problem where many go off the rails, in not realizing that there are, in "complex eco-systems" of one sort or another, very frequently a limited number of parts which work together to manifest the function that defines the terms or classes in question. Like the production of ova being essential, reproductively speaking, to "female" ...

We have basic (shared) fundamental legal and political concepts that date back to separation of powers from Royalty. These only partly define the specific and unique values that underpin national and cultural identities.

We have jazz hands 🤗 general stretch targets from the enlightenment, honoured more in omission than adoption. Like “freedom of speech”. Church and state separation is variable in practice, especially when church infuses society which then defines state.

As you yourself suggest, "fundamental legal and political concepts" seem more likely to qualify as far more essential to the proper functioning of the "complex social eco-systems" known as western democracies than whether we drink Foster's or Guinness or Molson ["not bad for a newcomer" - oldest brewery in North America], or whether we play soccer or hockey or cricket, or whether the patrons of drinking establishments or the players on the fields are white or not. As "unique" as they might be.

I think your critique needs some more work.

And I think your ethnostate concept needs a serious rethink - focusing on "white genocide" seems rather skin-deep - literally - at best. Though I'll concede more than a few seem to promote the idea, but I think they too are focusing on superficialities. Which is too bad as I expect there are, no doubt, not an inconsiderable number of problems, warts, and flaws - which may or may not be"fatal" - in "white" society that could do with some serious examination.

Reminds me that I've just started Orwell's "Burmese Days" which might well have been subtitled, "The Ugly Englishman", analogous of course to "The Ugly American". A relevant passage:

This [diatribe against "niggers"] went on for several minutes. It was curiously impressive, becasue it was so completely sincere. Ellis really did hate Orientals - hated them with a bitter, restless loathing as of something evil or unclean. Living and working, as the assistant of a timber firm must, in perpetual contact with the Burmese, he had never grown used to the sight of a black face. Any hint of friendly feeling towards an Oriental seemed to him a horrible perversity. He was an intelligent man and an able servant of his firm, but he was one of those Englishmen - common, unfortunately - who should never be allowed to set foot in the East. [pg 23]

No doubt there were some "problematic" aspects to British colonialism - as there is to colonialism in general - the case Orwell described probably being one of them. But you kind of have to ask yourself why "the sun never set on the British Empire", why they were probably one of the more successful, if not THE most successful, empires the world has seen - if not for the "fundamental legal and political concepts" that were part and parcel of their efforts. You may wish to compare that with, say, Islam - a barbaric & psychotic "religion" that deserves to be thrown on the dustheap of history, and toot sweet:

Anjuli_UDHR_CDHRI_Sharia_Sctn4B.jpg

(269.21 KiB) Downloaded 110 times

Dicking about with "superficialities" while the barbarians are beseiging the gates seems rather remarkably short-sighted at best, if not actually suicidal.

[Steersman]

<snip>

In any case, was wondering whether you were back in the land of the living, ready to do the Iron-Man competition. :-) Seem to recollect you'd been badly wracked up in a fall 6 or 8 months ago.

I'm fucked beyond repair, dude. As the doc says, for me, the war is over. I have a catalogue of problems - some small, others not-so-small and even though I can still cut around the place (heaping derision upon all that I see), my range and abilities are greatly reduced. No more climbing, long hikes or high-impact shenanigans. It's all good though, at Regimental/Military gatherings, people assume my hobbling is due to combat injury and force alcohol into me. I don't have the heart to tell them... ;)

Sorry to hear it mate - sucks big time. And, as nice as it might be to have people trying to buy you drinks, I rather doubt that's a really great compensation. :-)

(Are "stolen hangovers" a thing?)

Don't see anything in searching Urban Dictionary/Google for the term, but there might be some reason to add it. :-)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Quillette just launched a podcast thingie called Wrongspeak:

https://soundcloud.com/wrongspeak

[Matt Cavanaugh]

An interesting pitch for green on blue.

Here's something you can bank on - the act of stopping for prayers will never happen; not on exercise, not on ops, not even during peacetime camp routine. I don't give two squirts of piss what any recruiting video says, it simply will not happen.

Note: The entire advert is a laughably poor attempt - a fireteam sitting around in a gang fuck, section commander with a handset jammed to his skull, section commander ignoring/muting coms etc.

Then there's Private Allahu Ackbar with his nice snow-white skullcap. On patrol. No boots on. Kevlar removed. Weapon ditched. Completely switched off whilst he talks to goat-fucker god.

Nope. Won't happen. Guaranteed.

Repeat five fucking times a day.

Video should've ended showing a Yazidi sniperess painting Ahmed's shit-stained ass with a laser, then -- 'allahu wack... BLAM! -- cut to shot of squad's faces covered with halal butt-gore.

[Bhurzum]

I know he's not popular here but his vids are usually quite entertaining...

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I know he's not popular here but his vids are usually quite entertaining...

I like Crowder for the most part. That was not his best performance. There are no genders. There are two sexes.

If we are to make any traction on this issue, us sane folks need to stick to 'sex' and not conflate it with 'gender.'

[Steersman]

I know he's not popular here but his vids are usually quite entertaining...

https: ... //www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBKFG9Ilw

I like Crowder for the most part. That was not his best performance. There are no genders. There are two sexes.

If we are to make any traction on this issue, us sane folks need to stick to 'sex' and not conflate it with 'gender.'

Amen to that. More or less took the words right out of my mouth ;-)

Think far too many people are conflating sex and gender - seems useful to consider that sex is a component of gender, the same way that a carburetor is a component of (some) cars. Consider this elaboration from a post of mine at the Post Millennial: ....
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/discu ... der-issue/

But it's really quite amazing the number of people - even those who should know better, like Dr. Debra Soh who's one of the cohosts on that podcast you referred to - who insist on conflating those terms. You might check out this comment on that PM post of mine:

aced it says: May 17, 2018 at 12:27 am
Here’s some random definitions i pulled from Medical Dictionaries on the internet:

gender
/gen·der/ (jen´der) sex; the category to which an individual is *assigned on the basis of sex.*

gender
[jen′dər]
Etymology: L, genus, kind
1 the classification *of the sex* of a person into male and female.
2 the specific sex of a person. See also sex. ....

Frequently wonder why that's the case - saying the word "sex" starts the "dirty movies in their minds"? As I think Lenny Bruce put it.

Although I also periodically think many, particularly the transgendered or the intersex, are somewhat bent out of shape at the thought that the latter don't technically have a sex, that they're kind of excluded by, for example, "Santa's message to all good boys and girls everywhere".

Seems we all or most all of us, frequently have a rather desperate need to belong to some tribe or another, and feel some pain on being excluded - "no gurls allowed". Think that's also why many "women" are nonplussed - at best - that the implications of the standard definition for or essential element of "female" and "woman" - "produces ova" - means they're technically no longer female once they reach menopause. I've had some "spirited" discussions with Anjuli Pandavar on the issue - she has a Post Millennial article attempting a rebuttal of my position (link in the comments) - but she too balks at the argument:

You are saying that if you should lose your testes in an accident tomorrow, you will no longer be a man, and though you may not be “particularly enthused” about having dropped out of that class, you’ll just suck up the “discomfort” of it. Do you seriously believe that you will cease to be a man, as opposed to having become a man who has something wrong with his body? In the interests of good policy, should such men have the ‘M’ deleted from ‘Sex’ in their passports, too? What would you propose it should say in the passports of such gameteless “men” and “women”, for want of more truthful terms.

Think she's conflating the definitions for the terms with how we might indicate that on passports and driver's licenses - the difference between premises and theorems, between goals and methods to reach them.

Still, the whole issue is kind of amusing in a way - kind of like the argument as to which end to eat a soft-boiled egg from. Or whether the "right" side of the road to drive on is the left side or the right side. Somewhat arbitrary, but once the "definition" is decided on then it's kind of necessary to stick with it until good reasons are provided to change it.

In any case, that seems to be the whole phenomenon of "identity" and "identify" in a nutshell - grappling with that too seems necessary "if we are to make any traction on this issue".

[comhcinc]

I know he's not popular here but his vids are usually quite entertaining...

The Same YouTube Video

I like Crowder for the most part. That was not his best performance. There are no genders. There are two sexes.

If we are to make any traction on this issue, us sane folks need to stick to 'sex' and not conflate it with 'gender.'

Crowder is alright and can even be funny at points. I think the best approach is to still with gender diaspora. That's a thing. It affects people. The best treatment we have found is gender reassignment surgery. Gender Diaspora only works if there are two genders. We, the sane folks, are putting our foot down about this because we want to protect people with gender diaspora. We want those people to be able to live normal happy lives and be valued members of society. You can't do that if individuals are allowed to just make stuff up for whatever reason they want.

People like the first lady in the video I think know that deep down but they too soft hearted to say anything.

[KiwiInOz]

Gender diaspora? Is that like spreading your legs?

[comhcinc]

Gender diaspora? Is that like spreading your legs?

I would love to say that was autocorrected, but no I used the wrong word.

And I thought I had something meaningful to say too.

[KiwiInOz]

Gender diaspora? Is that like spreading your legs?

I would love to say that was autocorrected, but no I used the wrong word.

And I thought I had something meaningful to say too.

I thought that it was an excellent choice of word (and yes, I knew what you meant). It just presented a great mental picture and various opportunities for word play. But maybe that's just me.

[SM1957]

Why do SJWs hate Peterson.

This article shows two things.
1) Some of Peterson's followers are absurd. Wearing a lobster hat.....

2) Peterson tells his audience that they need to fix their own lives, and that if things have gone wrong for them, it is their fault.
This infuriates those people who want to sell the idea that if things are not perfect for you, somebody else is to blame and that 'they' are deliberately targeting you through patriarchy and racism, and unconsioucsly targetting you through unconscious bias


http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/11/i-a ... i-learned/

[Brive1987]

I know he's not popular here but his vids are usually quite entertaining...

http.://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBKFG9Ilw

CSA - only embed Pit approved youtubers. :fpig:

Your subtle groveling tone saved you from a warning.

[Steersman]

Gender diaspora? Is that like spreading your legs?

I would love to say that was autocorrected, but no I used the wrong word.

And I thought I had something meaningful to say too.

I thought that it was an excellent choice of word (and yes, I knew what you meant). It just presented a great mental picture and various opportunities for word play. But maybe that's just me.

Go down, Moses
Way down in Egypt's land
Tell old Pharaoh
Let my Deliciagender, Femfluid, Hydrogender, ...Venngender, Verangender, and Vibragender go ...

No, don't think it's just you - it did produce "a great mental picture and various opportunities ..." for me too. ;-)

As comhcinc suggested, don't think it helps anyone to allow "TransLoonies [tm]" to make up stories and then expect everyone else to play along. No doubt many transactivist and transgendered people are tormented by their "unorthodox" biology, but it seems rather unwise to be pandering to the delusional.

ICYMI, quite a good post that Barbara Kay had linked to on the topic:

The silencing of feminists silences survivors

.... Unfortunately, in recent months the changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the incredibly toxic debate around the issue of ‘gender self ID’ has left many more women under a heavy veil of silence, particularly for those of us who work in the VAW sector. The dark, uncomfortable irony of this silence is not lost on me, nor is it lost on the many women in the sector I have recently spoken to about this issue.

As someone who has worked with many survivors of violence over the last two decades, I am terrified – both professionally and personally – about the impact of self ID on ensuring safe spaces are available to women who have experienced and are escaping male violence. ....

There urgently needs to be a public debate on gender self-ID and its implication for the protections offered to women as a biological sex class. Of course, to say this is to out oneself to the trans lobby as a TERF. ....

Though, unfortunately or not, many feminists tend to be gender essentialists as well - insisting on some indefinable "essence" to "woman" - which tends to be a somewhat problematic "identity" also. But substantially less so than that of many transactivists.

[Brive1987]

:hankey:

I’m suggesting that considering values to be discrete and contained units capable of being sorted into prioritised buckets is stupid.

Fundamental values do not define a cultural and national identity. We might all have “rule of law” but the way it is practiced in France compared to USA or Australia is a non trivial difference. Same with church/state and freedom of speech and whatever else you hold to be base.

That aside, sport, music, foundation stories, language and idiom, civic exercises and shared history et al are as important (or more so) for the vast bulk of law abiding citizens than abstract “western” ideals.

But you lost the debate when you suggested Australians drink Fosters. That is an urban myth.

[Kirbmarc]

You go girls!

Just a word of advice: don't ever criticize Mr. Putin. It's not good for your health. :bjarte:

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/taisa1978/im ... 3d01b8.jpg

[Bhurzum]

Your subtle groveling tone saved you from a warning.

At the risk of sounding like an obsequious toady, and I say this with all due respect, go fuck yourself you jizz-gargling, ripped arse, communist pinko cock-monger. Here, let me get you a wooden spoon so you can eat my arse...

https://images.esellerpro.com/2243/I/23 ... %20(2).JPG

:P

[SM1957]

You go girls!

Just a word of advice: don't ever criticize Mr. Putin. It's not good for your health. :bjarte:

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/taisa1978/im ... 3d01b8.jpg

You go girls!

Just a word of advice: don't ever criticize Mr. Putin. It's not good for your health. :bjarte:

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/taisa1978/im ... 3d01b8.jpg

Don't worry.

Katie Hopkins won't criticise Putin.

She only criticises Western governments for their immigration policies and their attitude to importing different cultures.

So she will be quite safe from any possibility of repercussions.

[SM1957]

I'm sure one of those Russian girls sent me an email asking if I wanted to date them.

I wish I hadn't deleted it now.

[Kirbmarc]

Thing is, I'm not even rabidly anti-Putin. The US has deals with equally bad dictators, from Pinochet to the Saudi regime, and at least he's a rational actor. He's a bastard, but an amoral rational bastard, not a demented fanatic bastard. As long as you never, EVER trust him, and you want the same thing, you CAN work with him, at least for a limited time, as long as you can stomach his methods (which the US never had any problems with when it was THEIR side doing those things).

What is funny is how these alleged champions of free speech, these moralists of the alt-right, are all fawning over a dude who killed journalists for criticizing him. This is just like the SJWs who claim to be the champions of LGBT rights and yet gush over hijabs and praise islam.

You can be someone with principles OR you can be an amoral, calculating Machiavellian operator who bases its choices on geopolitical concerns and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". But you can't be both. If you try to paint yourself as the paladin of a cause, then break bread with those who wipe their ass with your values just because it's politically useful, you'll only look like a clown.

[Steersman]

<snip>

I’m suggesting that considering values to be discrete and contained units capable of being sorted into prioritised buckets is stupid.

What a cogent rebuttal ... not.

You might try living under Sharia or in Russia if you think "prioritized buckets are stupid".

Fundamental values do not define a cultural and national identity. We might all have “rule of law” but the way it is practiced in France compared to USA or Australia is a non trivial difference. Same with church/state and freedom of speech and whatever else you hold to be base.

Ipse dixit. Largely trivial differences when you consider Islam, and the equally tender mercies of autocrats in China, Russia, North Korea, etc.

Still think that most of what you call "a cultural and national identity" is mostly superficialities, a weak reed to be putting much faith in. Or build a movement on.

That aside, sport, music, foundation stories, language and idiom, civic exercises and shared history et al are as important (or more so) for the vast bulk of law abiding citizens than abstract “western” ideals.

Those differences can't be all that important to the functioning of various societies if they're absent in many of them that happen to share a great many other values.

But you lost the debate when you suggested Australians drink Fosters. That is an urban myth.

LoL. Grabbing at straws?

[Kirbmarc]

That aside, sport, music, foundation stories, language and idiom, civic exercises and shared history et al are as important (or more so) for the vast bulk of law abiding citizens than abstract “western” ideals.

Those differences can't be all that important to the functioning of various societies if they're absent in many of them that happen to share a great many other values.

When Steersman, he of "population transfers", points out a major flaw in your identitarian right-wing approach, things are quite bad.

[feathers]

Crowder is alright and can even be funny at points. I think the best approach is to still with gender diaspora. That's a thing. It affects people. The best treatment we have found is gender reassignment surgery.

I'm not so sure about that. Do we have any data that shows that a significant majority of people are actually happier after the surgery?

[SM1957]

Crowder is alright and can even be funny at points. I think the best approach is to still with gender diaspora. That's a thing. It affects people. The best treatment we have found is gender reassignment surgery.

I'm not so sure about that. Do we have any data that shows that a significant majority of people are actually happier after the surgery?

A significant majority of people in Britain would be happier if Ian Huntley had surgery to correct his gender dysphoria. People are volunteering to use their own secateurs.

[Bhurzum]

A significant majority of people in Britain would be happier if Ian Huntley had surgery to correct his gender dysphoria. People are volunteering to use their own secateurs.

LOL!

Best post evah!

[Hunt]

secateurs

I'm using that the next time I'm in Home Depot. Nobody will know wtf I'm talking about.

[comhcinc]

Crowder is alright and can even be funny at points. I think the best approach is to still with gender diaspora. That's a thing. It affects people. The best treatment we have found is gender reassignment surgery.

I'm not so sure about that. Do we have any data that shows that a significant majority of people are actually happier after the surgery?

I want to say that yes when other factors such as dealt with then people are happier. I know anecdotally that's the case as well.

I would also point out that I said: "the best treatment we have found". I leave the door open for other better things.

[Steersman]

That aside, sport, music, foundation stories, language and idiom, civic exercises and shared history et al are as important (or more so) for the vast bulk of law abiding citizens than abstract “western” ideals.

Those differences can't be all that important to the functioning of various societies if they're absent in many of them that happen to share a great many other values.

When Steersman, he of "population transfers", points out a major flaw in your identitarian right-wing approach, things are quite bad.

:-) "Et tu, Brute" - and all that? ... ;-)

Though, as I've tried pointing out to Brive - boy's always talking, never listening ;-) , I think he and Goldy and many of their fellow-travelers are focusing on superficialities. Really don't think letting large numbers of people - whose values are clearly antithetical to the bedrock fundamentals of a country - into it is the same kettle of fish.

Did you see that article about Italy I quoted in a comment to, I think, a post of Aneris?

Italy: "The Party is Over" for Illegal Migrants
by Soeren Kern

Italy's new interior minister, Matteo Salvini, has vowed to cut aid money for migrants and to deport those who illegally are in the country.

"Open doors in Italy for the right people and a one-way ticket out for those who come here to make trouble and think that we will provide for them," Salvini said in the Lombardy region, home to a quarter of the total foreign population in Italy. "One of our top priorities will be deportation."

Salvini, leader of the nationalist League (Lega) party, formed a new coalition government with the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) on June 1. The government's program, outlined in a 39-page action plan, promises to crack down on illegal immigration and to deport up to 500,000 undocumented migrants. ....

Kind of looks like a "population transfer" to me, although it will be interesting to see if they follow through on the plan.

[Steersman]

Crowder is alright and can even be funny at points. I think the best approach is to still with gender diaspora. That's a thing. It affects people. The best treatment we have found is gender reassignment surgery.

I'm not so sure about that. Do we have any data that shows that a significant majority of people are actually happier after the surgery?

I want to say that yes when other factors such as dealt with then people are happier. I know anecdotally that's the case as well.

I would also point out that I said: "the best treatment we have found". I leave the door open for other better things.

Maybe some are - seems a rather large number aren't. And, analogously, that those with body integrity identity disorder might happen to be "happier" when they've had a limb amputated doesn't say a helluva lot that's favourable about the medical profession. I suppose people are entitled to do what they want with their bodies, but moot whether kids of 10-16 really know their own minds, much less what the long-term consequences of their choices are.

And you might check out:



I hated her guts at the time: A trans-desister and her mom tell their story

[MarcusAu]

secateurs

I'm using that the next time I'm in Home Depot. Nobody will know wtf I'm talking about.

In which case it could become a non sequitur.

[MarcusAu]

Gender diaspora? Is that like spreading your legs?

I would love to say that was autocorrected, but no I used the wrong word.

And I thought I had something meaningful to say too.

I thought that it was an excellent choice of word (and yes, I knew what you meant). It just presented a great mental picture and various opportunities for word play. But maybe that's just me.

Why can't they just go away and leave me alone?

[MarcusAu]

Why do SJWs hate Peterson.

This article shows two things.
1) Some of Peterson's followers are absurd. Wearing a lobster hat.....

2) Peterson tells his audience that they need to fix their own lives, and that if things have gone wrong for them, it is their fault.
This infuriates those people who want to sell the idea that if things are not perfect for you, somebody else is to blame and that 'they' are deliberately targeting you through patriarchy and racism, and unconsioucsly targetting you through unconscious bias


http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/11/i-a ... i-learned/

I suspect that many people already have a narrative installed that runs counter to the one Peterson is selling.

Also, the secular guru approach (cf Tony Robins) even if not religious in nature (and the 'if' is debatable) brings some people out in hives.

[Bhurzum]

In which case it could become a non sequitur.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/22/c6 ... dc67a1.gif

[MarcusAu]

Even if Peterson does turn out to be the new messiah.

I'm probably not the one that will drive in the nails.

[Brive1987]

.://twitter.com/kthopkins/status/1006084492279369728?s=21

You go girls!

Just a word of advice: don't ever criticize Mr. Putin. It's not good for your health. :bjarte:

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/taisa1978/im ... 3d01b8.jpg

Hmm. You can add “cock block” to your growing list of crimes.

[Brive1987]

That aside, sport, music, foundation stories, language and idiom, civic exercises and shared history et al are as important (or more so) for the vast bulk of law abiding citizens than abstract “western” ideals.

Those differences can't be all that important to the functioning of various societies if they're absent in many of them that happen to share a great many other values.

When Steersman, he of "population transfers", points out a major flaw in your identitarian right-wing approach, things are quite bad.

I didn’t actually understand Steersman’s point, he seemed to be mapping aspects of unique national identity to .... ummm, things .... to suggest they umm .. aren’t important ?

Typical. There is never a wall of words when you need one.

[shoutinghorse]

Indeed. You'll be hard pushed to find anyone in uniform who genuinely hates Sikhs or ghurkas. We might give each other shit, strong shit, but it's just banter. Same with the English (poofs), the Irish (thick cunts) and the Welsh (sheep shaggers) - if we can't get you on religion, we'll get you on nationality.

I grew up in a town where ghurkas were stationed, apart from always being immaculately dressed when in civvy's they were the most polite and courteous people you could wish to meet. No one ever had a bad word to say about them. Mind you with the reputation they have as fighting men no one in their right mind was ever brave enough to wind them up and put them to the test.

[Brive1987]

Oh.

I think I found Steers cutting argument that gave Kirb a quiver:

Differences between Western Countries pale in comparison to Islam and are therefore superficial.

Furthermore .....

still think that most of what you call "a cultural and national identity" is mostly superficialities, a weak reed to be putting much faith in. Or build a movement on.

Well. I still think you are wrong. So nah.

[Kirbmarc]

.://twitter.com/kthopkins/status/1006084492279369728?s=21

You go girls!

Just a word of advice: don't ever criticize Mr. Putin. It's not good for your health. :bjarte:

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/taisa1978/im ... 3d01b8.jpg

Hmm. You can add “cock block” to your growing list of crimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXl4MsdEeU

[Brive1987]

Thing is, I'm not even rabidly anti-Putin. The US has deals with equally bad dictators, from Pinochet to the Saudi regime, and at least he's a rational actor. He's a bastard, but an amoral rational bastard, not a demented fanatic bastard. As long as you never, EVER trust him, and you want the same thing, you CAN work with him, at least for a limited time, as long as you can stomach his methods (which the US never had any problems with when it was THEIR side doing those things).

What is funny is how these alleged champions of free speech, these moralists of the alt-right, are all fawning over a dude who killed journalists for criticizing him. This is just like the SJWs who claim to be the champions of LGBT rights and yet gush over hijabs and praise islam.

You can be someone with principles OR you can be an amoral, calculating Machiavellian operator who bases its choices on geopolitical concerns and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". But you can't be both. If you try to paint yourself as the paladin of a cause, then break bread with those who wipe their ass with your values just because it's politically useful, you'll only look like a clown.

Are you having another Faith Goldy did a video all about white genocide moments? :lol:

Has there been an endorsement of Putin and his methods? Or are people identifying specific things of note that may help drive a more west-centric conversation?

[Kirbmarc]

Oh.

I think I found Steers cutting argument that gave Kirb a quiver:

Differences between Western Countries pale in comparison to Islam and are therefore superficial.

Furthermore .....

still think that most of what you call "a cultural and national identity" is mostly superficialities, a weak reed to be putting much faith in. Or build a movement on.

Well. I still think you are wrong. So nah.

Nope. Read the sentence again.

Those differences can't be all that important to the functioning of various societies if they're absent in many of them that happen to share a great many other values.

You were pushing the idea that "sports, music, foundation stories" were as important as values. Steersman (credit is where credit is due) pointed out that "sports, music, foundation stories" aren't common to countries that instead share sets of values. Even you don't really care about the waves of Italian or Greek immigrants who certainly didn't have "sports, music, foundation stories" in common with the Old Stock British Australians, but are greatly concerned about the Chinese or Indian immigrants.

This isn't about islam, at least not directly. This is about the fundamental arbitrary sets of characteristics that you think are important or necessary when it comes to your argument against Chinese or Indian immigration (or, yes, immigration from muslim majority countries) but NOT when it comes to Italian or Greek immigration.

The problem, Brive, is that your definitions of what is important or necessary are muddled, confused, and conflate the issue of the rule of law with the issue of long-term integration and with cultural clash or cultural contact. The specific problems of islam are a side issue, that you usually don't devote much time to.

The whole "ethnic identity" argument is a mess anyway. At best it's nostalgia for the past, at worst it MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT before you pitch a fit) be used to justify racism.

[Kirbmarc]

Are you having another Faith Goldy did a video all about white genocide moments? :lol:

Has there been an endorsement of Putin and his methods? Or are people identifying specific things of note that may help drive a more west-centric conversation?

You don't need to do an EXPLICIT endorsement of Putin and his methods to a hypocrite about the values you claim to support (like freedom of speech).

The point is that people like Hopkins or Southern whine about how they've been unjustly attacked for their speech in the UK, but then go to Russia to whitewash and legitimize as a "persecuted intellectual" one of the members of the Putin propaganda machine (Southern), or to gush over how Russia is the Defender of the Europe (Hopkins).

Again, this is like when the SocJus rants and raves about how Everything in The Stinky "West" is Homophobic and Transphobic, but then gush over hijabs, the symbol of a religion which is used to promote abuses of LGBT people and/or support Hizbollah or Hamas or Louis Farrakhan, who are spreading conspiracy theories about how gay people are a Jewish conspiracy.

[Kirbmarc]

My criticism of Southern or Goldy or Hopkins is that they're shit-stirring clickbait-mongers who deliberately seek out "edgy" opinions and nuclear hot takes to get attention, while then complaining about everyone hates them and abuses them, or violates their rights, even though they're quickly ready to throw away their alleged principles when it comes to facing regimes which routinely violate the values they claim to support.

Just like Becky Watson or Amanda Marcotte. At least Southern and Goldy are good looking. Hopkins isn't even that. :bjarte:

[Brive1987]

I’m struggling to find fault with the thrust of this particular video. I’m sure the man will come out in part three with “gas all the chuds”.

But here he truly explains why Kirb hates him - how social (as opposed to economic or neo) liberalism is naturally aligned to SJWism. That destruction of gender collectives and destruction of cultural collectives are simply different aspects of the same liberal agenda.

Not sure about his take on positive feminism. I hadn’t heard of the school of thought he mentions.

Kirb, which aspects of Southern’s commentary do you find offensive? Spoiler - she just lets the man talk.

[Brive1987]

You don't need to do an EXPLICIT endorsement of Putin and his methods to a hypocrite about the values you claim to support (like freedom of speech).

I thought it was more like when I went to Czech and then evangelised their buses over our stinky low tech versions. Very few people told me “if you like it so much, well fucking move there”.

[shoutinghorse]

I fucking love Donald Trump .. :lol:

[Bhurzum]

I grew up in a town where ghurkas were stationed, apart from always being immaculately dressed when in civvy's they were the most polite and courteous people you could wish to meet. No one ever had a bad word to say about them. Mind you with the reputation they have as fighting men no one in their right mind was ever brave enough to wind them up and put them to the test.

I had the (mis)fortune of being paired with one of the buggers on my ITGIS course (recruit instructor gubbins) - not only did the fucker outrun, situp, pressup and skill/drill me, he spoke better English than wot I done. Still, he was a top bloke and I had a cheerful reunion with him years later at some random firepower demo in England. I had gone from corporal to Staff Sergeant, he had picked up his Major. No sour grapes or career envy, the guy is a legend! Last I heard, he was running an education wing for Nepalese and Fijian soldiers. As I said, top bloke.

Nothing but respect for the Bde.

[Kirbmarc]

I’m struggling to find fault with the thrust of this particular video. I’m sure the man will come out in part three with “gas all the chuds”.

But here he truly explains why Kirb hates him - how social (as opposed to economic or neo) liberalism is naturally aligned to SJWism. That destruction of gender collectives and destruction of cultural collectives are simply different aspects of the same liberal agenda.

Not sure about his take on positive feminism. I hadn’t heard of the school of thought he mentions.

Kirb, which aspects of Southern’s commentary do you find offensive? Spoiler - she just lets the man talk.

It's not a matter of "offense". It's a matter of not being a chump to a propagandist for an authoritarian regime.

By the way, "standpoint feminism" is actually one of the foundations of the SocJus: the idea of the "two universes" is the foundation of "women's ways of knowing" or of "mansplaining", or, in terms of cultures, why "cultural appropriation" is such an awful crime. So either Dugin is trolling Southern, or he has no clue of what he's talking about.

What Dugin is doing, when talking about individual and group identity, is undermining one of the main principles of the Western democracies, namely individual rights, human rights, as described by the Declaration of Rights of Man.

Dugin is attempting to justify the authoritarian measures of the Putin regime as a "defense of the collective identity": they're not killing or imprisoning critics to violate rights, they're doing it to "defend the collective" (Goebbels would have talked about "Volk", islamists would have talked about the "Ummah").

Textbook authoritarianism.

The problem isn't whether "collective identities" exist or not. They exist, although they're not as monolithic as Dugin (or, incidentally, the SJWs, with their focus on how "identity" is the measure of all things) seems to think: they change over time, they mix (this is what SJWs call "cultural appropriation"), etc.

The point is about WHAT you defend through LAWS. Do you base your political and justice system on individual rights, or do you base them on "collective identities"? This is a VERY important distinction.

If you base your politics and justice system on "collective identities" then it's very easy to justify violations of individual rights: the critics of this governmental policy was "harming the collective", the homosexuals, by not reproducing, are being parasites of the "collective", the mentally ill or "work-shy" are similarly dragging down the "collective", etc. etc.

It's not a surprise that Dugin admires Stalin, or the SS, for their focus on collectivism.

[Brive1987]

My criticism of Southern or Goldy or Hopkins is that they're shit-stirring clickbait-mongers who deliberately seek out "edgy" opinions and nuclear hot takes to get attention, while then complaining about everyone hates them and abuses them, or violates their rights, even though they're quickly ready to throw away their alleged principles when it comes to facing regimes which routinely violate the values they claim to support.

Just like Becky Watson or Amanda Marcotte. At least Southern and Goldy are good looking. Hopkins isn't even that. :bjarte:

My working hypothesis is that all this anger comes from your intellectual elitism. That the girls should back away from these weighty matter of mind and leave them to the experts.

Is the entry ticket to the bleachers a subscription to JSTOR?

[MarcusAu]

I grew up in a town where ghurkas were stationed, apart from always being immaculately dressed when in civvy's they were the most polite and courteous people you could wish to meet. No one ever had a bad word to say about them. Mind you with the reputation they have as fighting men no one in their right mind was ever brave enough to wind them up and put them to the test.

I had the (mis)fortune of being paired with one of the buggers on my ITGIS course (recruit instructor gubbins) - not only did the fucker outrun, situp, pressup and skill/drill me, he spoke better English than wot I done. Still, he was a top bloke and I had a cheerful reunion with him years later at some random firepower demo in England. I had gone from corporal to Staff Sergeant, he had picked up his Major. No sour grapes or career envy, the guy is a legend! Last I heard, he was running an education wing for Nepalese and Fijian soldiers. As I said, top bloke.

Nothing but respect for the Bde.

And on that note...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apfaDqcf2FA

[Kirbmarc]

You don't need to do an EXPLICIT endorsement of Putin and his methods to a hypocrite about the values you claim to support (like freedom of speech).

I thought it was more like when I went to Czech and then evangelised their buses over our stinky low tech versions. Very few people told me “if you like it so much, well fucking move there”.

There's a big difference between being a tourist and doing political propaganda, which is what Hopkins is doing by praising the Putin regime. Don't be naive.