Steerzing in a New Direction...

[Service Dog]

He's just another innocent victim of systematic institutional interracial granny librarian snuff porn.

[fafnir]

It strikes me that this endless discussion about the definition of female and a fixation on definitions is rather like a conversation between somebody who comes from a common law tradition talking to somebody who has no conception of a law outside the Roman law tradition. Most people are effectively operating under a common law understanding of "female". Steersman is absolutely unwilling to consider anything outside the defined and specified Roman Law tradition. His is the Academie Francaise tradition which "gives" rules to the language. The English tradition has always been more about recording usage.

Some questions, if I may?

(sorry if you've already answered these elsewhere)

1) Do you think that a trans* woman is female in the same way that your mother is/was female?

No. I'm not doing that on axiomatic grounds though, rather from my limited contact with them and looking into my heart. I don't absolutely discount the possibility that one would trigger enough of the "is female" checks in my head to count. The being born with a twig and berries is a very significant obstacle for me though, and might in practice be insurmountable.

2) Do you think your average man-in-a-dress thinks he's female in the same way your mother is/was female?

I guess I think the catergory of men in dresses is a grab bag of lots of different people with a variety of different motivations and beliefs. I'm not sure that there really is an average case in any useful sense. Ultimately, I don't think I've seen data that would allow me to answer the question.

For the record, I do. By employing endless verbal chicanery, political pressure and now, as evidenced in numerous legal or public battles, the gap between the two is slowly but surely closing.

These legal battles aren't being fought by the average man in a dress though. They are being fought by a particular subgroup of men in dresses with a particular ideology. I'm not sure one should map the claimed views of militant political men in dresses onto all men in dresses.

The definition(s) of words used in these situations are of critical importance. Perhaps this is why Steers (and others) are doggedly clinging to them and refuse to give an inch? Definitions, especially scientific ones, are tactically important hills which must be defended.

I agree that the meaning of words in particular contexts need to be defended. There is certainly a game going on where new meanings for words are being pushed in order to be able to read new meanings into laws. That is a much wider problem though with a long history. We are effectively talking about legal activism and liberal interpretations of the law which goes back a loooooong way. I'm a "what did the people who ratified this law think it meant" kind of a guy. If we can't figure that out, then it is moot for vagueness. Effectively what happens instead is legislating from the bench.

2) Do you think your average man-in-a-dress should be considered female in the same way your mother is/was?

I think the historical way this was managed was through vagueness. By not having an ironclad, black and white definition, poor unfortunates could be allowed into womens spaces up to the point women felt comfortable and a boundary could be negotiated and people who misbehaved could be thrown out. Certainly this didn't solve all problems or make everybody happy. By clarifying the definition, that capacity to negotiate the line on a case by case basis is taken away.

Going forward, I don't know. I think the wider war is against legalising everything and handing over the job of handling all disputes to the government. This is just one battle in that war. On that basis, I think I am suspicious of any Steersman-like solution that seeks to give legally enforceable definitions that don't have a significant grey area for case by case judgements. To my mind it's been a losing war since the 60s... arguably longer. Civil rights law, hate speach law.... all these things are the government imposing Steersman-like definitive rules (only written by people with a political agenda) on human interaction and trying to change the culture by force.

For the record, I don't. The notion is preposterous, shouldn't even be given any clock cycles and yet, thanks to question two (above), here we are. No, I think a trans person is a human being with a pretty serious wiring problem. How they "identify" (there's another bullshit buzzword) plays second fiddle to reality - they are not what they think they are and we should not be pressured into playing along with their delusions.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it plays second fiddle to reality since I'm not sure I can point to an underlying reality beyond the cultural beliefs of the society. Looking at this in the context of the wider war, I think it plays second fiddle to everybody elses freedom of association and freedom from state coercion. Making everybody view trans women as women by force seems like a hard road to go down. It's like trying to force people to accept some unpopular kid in the school yard. Can you do it? If you can, should you? It is yet another example of the cultural norms of a relatively small group of people at the top of society who will pay no price if it goes badly being forced down the throats of everybody else.

[fafnir]

He's just another innocent victim of systematic institutional interracial granny librarian snuff porn.

I'm sure the Soros DAs will understand.....

[fafnir]

Do you think that a trans* woman is female in the same way that your mother is/was female?

A better explanation came to my mind. Maybe it's that the SJWs have it 180 degrees the wrong way around? What you identify as doesn't matter. It's how other people identify you. Like being a member of a tribe. You are a member when the other members say you are and not when they say you aren't. You aren't female because of some ineffable inner feminine quality. You are female, or a woman because other people in the society say you are and accept you as such. There is nothing more or less to what is required to be female, or a woman than that. I know I've read this explanation before, but I can't for the life of me remember where.

[Service Dog]

Perhaps this is why Steers (and others) are doggedly clinging to them and refuse to give an inch? Definitions, especially scientific ones, are tactically important hills which must be defended.

Steers is like that WW2 memorabilia collector who stuck an anti-tank round up his own ass: you can't justify that guy's handiwork by pointing-to the crucial combat-role of AT weaponry, or anything in the British Museum Conservator's Manual of Historic Artifact Preservation.

Steersman's endeavor is something-else entirely.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm sure the Soros DAs will understand.....

Apparently, Spielberg's remake of WSS is bombing. Some are blaming its wokeness, but a confounding factor is that Broadway sucks and, aside from closeted homosexuals like John, nobody likes it anymore. Even back in its hey-day, Broadway was only liked by women and fags, and tolerated by the husbands. It was also an easy way for the nouveau riche of the NYC "tri-state" area to feign cultural sophistication with facile morals-of-the-story and simplistic, formulaic ditties. Kinda like drinking chardonnay nowadays.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

What you identify as doesn't matter. It's how other people identify you. Like being a member of a tribe. You are a member when the other members say you are and not when they say you aren't. You aren't female because of some ineffable inner feminine quality. You are female, or a woman because other people in the society say you are and accept you as such.

That is the core of AGP -- to be seen and recognized as a woman by others. That sexually arouses them. So the SJWs are not just facilitating a mental disorder, they're participating in a paraphilia.

And of course, being the narcissistic bullies they are, the AGPs have entirely dominated 'trans activism.'

[Service Dog]

an easy way for the nouveau riche of the NYC "tri-state" area to feign cultural sophistication

My friend Fang is the son of a cleaning-lady & a doorman. He lives with his mother-- in the same apartment since he was born. Servants of more-recent vintage commute to work from outer boroughs, Long Island, New Jersey. But Fang's family are an anachronism: they live on the Upper East Side.

Recently, Fang was lamenting that he does not take advantage of all the "high art" available in close proximity. He didn't mention modern dance at Lincoln Center, or conceptual art at the Guggenheim, or lectures at Columbia University. The example he gave was "Broadway musicals". Which caught me off-guard.

I tried to explain terms like 'high art', 'low art', and 'bad taste'... but he tensed-up & actively side-tracked the conversation. He didn't know what I was going to say, but he would prefer to protect his own value-assessments... by remaining ignorant of other perspectives... rather than risk the discomfort of knowing something potentially-soul-crushing, which he might wish he had never learned.

[Lsuoma]

White Karen-related chimpout on a plane:

[Lsuoma]

Not a real chimpout, though. Whites can't chimpout properly.

[Bhurzum]

Going forward <Giant Snip>

Thank you for the reply. Much to process.

[Bhurzum]

Not a real chimpout, though. Whites can't chimpout properly.

Hmmm...is there an actual "white" version of Chimpout?

Honkey-hullabaloo.
Cracker-commotion.
Mayo-mutiny.
Aryan-affray.
Redneck-rumpus.

None of these are as catchy as chimpout.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/wuNm0Y6erUpJ6/200.gif

[Bhurzum]

[fafnir]

Not a real chimpout, though. Whites can't chimpout properly.

Hmmm...is there an actual "white" version of Chimpout?

Honkey-hullabaloo.
Cracker-commotion.
Mayo-mutiny.
Aryan-affray.
Redneck-rumpus.

None of these are as catchy as chimpout.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/wuNm0Y6erUpJ6/200.gif

White fight?

[Service Dog]

Today I inadvertently completed a long-term study-- confirming that,
even 20 years after the study began (also inadvertently),
the mere incidental mention of Jennifer Love Hewitt
will consistently cause women to look me right in the eye and volunteer,
with a voice suddenly sharp and aggressive,
that Jennifer Love Hewitt "is not attractive" and "does not have a good body".
Furthermore, she has "big boobs" (stated in a tone which makes it quite-clear this is a character flaw.)

[Steersman]

It strikes me that this endless discussion about the definition of female and a fixation on definitions is rather like a conversation between somebody who comes from a common law tradition talking to somebody who has no conception of a law outside the Roman law tradition. Most people are effectively operating under a common law understanding of "female". Steersman is absolutely unwilling to consider anything outside the defined and specified Roman Law tradition. His is the Academie Francaise tradition which "gives" rules to the language. The English tradition has always been more about recording usage.

Some questions, if I may?

(sorry if you've already answered these elsewhere)

My gosh! What a garrulous fellow you are! Kissed the blarney stone recently did we? :P ;)

But some very good questions that speak to the heart - if not to both the head and genitalia - of the matter. To wit:

1) Do you think that a trans* woman is female in the same way that your mother is/was female?

For the record, I don't. I'm happy to explain the differences between the two (as I see it) but will only lay-out my workings if requested to do so. I understand your reluctance to open yet another can of gender based worms, especially when bred by a fucking buffoon such as I.

Would be interested in hearing your "workings" - an issue where there are more than a few devils in the details. Failing to deal with them in any sort of a rational - and scientific - fashion is what gives free rein to the demented and deluded, to the sociopaths and psychopaths, to the thugs and psychotics that litter the transgender spectrum.

2) Do you think your average man-in-a-dress thinks he's female in the same way your mother is/was female?

For the record, I do. By employing endless verbal chicanery, political pressure and now, as evidenced in numerous legal or public battles, the gap between the two is slowly but surely closing. The definition(s) of words used in these situations are of critical importance. Perhaps this is why Steers (and others) are doggedly clinging to them and refuse to give an inch? Definitions, especially scientific ones, are tactically important hills which must be defended.

Amen - in spades - to both "critical importance" and "tactically important hills". Though one might reasonably argue that those "hills" are the whole ball of wax. If we abandon those then we might just as well bend over and kiss our asses goodbye since any claims to being an enlightened civilization will be shown to be a fraud.

But quite a bit of evidence that, as you suggest, more than a few transwomen - AKA, male transvestites - actually see themselves as women - see this quite illuminating if damning essay by Hacsi Horváth, a "detransitioned epidemiologist" (no indication yet where he comes down on the issue of ivermectin ... ;-) ):

https://4thwavenow.com/2018/12/19/the-t ... -identity/

Although some transwomen - Andrea Long Chu, an amusing name, for example - understands the difference between the dream and the reality:

More recently, trans writer Andrea Long Chu (author of On Liking Women) described it as follows: “I am trying to tell you something that few of us dare to talk about, especially in public, especially when we are trying to feel political: not the fact, boringly obvious to those of us living it, that many trans women wish they were cis women, but the darker, more difficult fact that many trans women wish they were women, period.”

https://quillette.com/2019/03/13/gender ... f-history/

Kinda think she is using "ciswomen" as a gender while using "women" as a sex ("adult human female [produces ova]"). An illustration why it's often crucial to be precise.

But, rather sadly, it seems many more of the transgendered have crossed the Rubicon, are rather more than a single toke over the line, have bought the "vicious lie" (hook, line and sinker), in rather desperately insisting that they are actually women, that they are actually females:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/1 ... ement.html

But more broadly and speaking to your "critically and tactically important hills", I'm somewhat amused, though encouraged, that even Fafnir more or less endorses the principle, even if not its application or relevance to particular "hills":

I don't think a prostitute should be a school teacher. Either you have hard lines, or you have no lines. ....

... but it doesn't really matter to me as much as that we accept the principle that there are defensible lines that, even though they are distressing for some people, need to be held.

Bit of tricky question - on which honest men, women, and otherkin may disagree - as to which "hills" are morally defensible - yea, even unto death! ;-) - and which ones aren't. I think that insisting that ex-prostitutes are somehow beyond the pale qualifies as the latter, while not being overly concerned about someone's "distress" probably qualifies as one of the former. As Stephen Fry rather pithily put it:

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825 ... i-m-rather

"So fucking what", indeed. One of the more brilliant things I've seen come out of the British Isles - that and "shoddy and inept applications of words", of course ... ;-)

But the nub of the matter seems to be the question of categories - who gets to qualify as members of which categories, what are the objective criteria that must be met before "membership cards" are issued, and what rights are thereby granted? As Pinker cogently argued, the whole concept and principle of categorization is foundational - it goes back to the beginnings of language if not further; it's essential to the whole edifice of civilization and of science on which this one rests - if somewhat precariously:

Pinker_HowTheMindWorks_Categories.jpg

(57.51 KiB) Downloaded 109 times

If our categories, and the principles and ethics and science on which they're based, are so loosey-goosey as to grant bepenised transwomen membership in the "female" category then we might just as well close up shop and say that anyone is anything they say they are - simply abandon objectivity for the siren call of subjectivity that is the bailiwick of the religious, of the "magical thinkers", of the critical race theorists and all of their odious ilk:

Quillette_TyrannySubjective_Listen_1C.jpg

(143.48 KiB) Downloaded 107 times

3) Do you think your average man-in-a-dress should be considered female in the same way your mother is/was?

For the record, I don't. The notion is preposterous, shouldn't even be given any clock cycles and yet, thanks to question two (above), here we are. No, I think a trans person is a human being with a pretty serious wiring problem. How they "identify" (there's another bullshit buzzword) plays second fiddle to reality - they are not what they think they are and we should not be pressured into playing along with their delusions.

"preposterous", indeed. Rank fucking insanity. We might just as well say that a child of 12 can buy booze, cigarettes and guns if they "self-identify" as 35.

And quite agree with "a pretty serious wiring problem". One might reasonably argue that the transgendered need a session or two on the electro-convulsive-shock therapy machines. As there are unlikely to be enough to go around, hooking them up to the 220V mains for a few cycles may do the trick.

And "amen" to "playing along with their delusions" - largely the theme of the movie "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" - highly recommended - and my own Medium essay on the rather profound difference between "being X" and "identifying-as X".

A serious puzzle as to how and why kids, in particular, go off the rails into thinking that they're members of the opposite sex. But people who pander to their delusions, who are even "useful idiots" in that process, who trick them into mangling their bodies should be strung up by their nuts and be left to twist in the wind: "child abuse" is only the beginning of an odious bill of particulars.

ICYMI, a rather damning summation from transman Scott Newgent - another punny if quite articulate fellow (figuratively speaking ...):

https://www.newsweek.com/we-need-balanc ... on-1567277

Your answers to these questions will undoubtedly provoke a response (I'm counting on it, this is a subject I really enjoy!) but please don't think I'm trolling - I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. ....

A "man" - or a "woman" - may smile and smile and still a troller be ... ;-)

But not sure that it's really a subject that I, you, or we should "enjoy", particularly as it encompasses some very sticky wickets and not inconsiderable grief, indeed. However, it's one where the rubber meets the road in a great many quite serious ways. Engenders - so to speak - some questions where one might reasonably argue that western civilization itself hangs in the balance: are "we" going to come down on the side of what is "true"? Or on the side of what "feels good", on the side of pandering to the easily offended?

DemonHauntedWorld_Sagan_FeelsGood_1A.jpg

(287.21 KiB) Downloaded 108 times

[fafnir]

Would be interested in hearing your "workings" - an issue where there are more than a few devils in the details. Failing to deal with them in any sort of a rational - and scientific - fashion is what gives free rein to the demented and deluded, to the sociopaths and psychopaths, to the thugs and psychotics that litter the transgender spectrum.

That you can define the core elements of society on rationalism is false, or rather that you can do it without everything turning to shit is false. This was one of the foundational errors of the French revolution as explained in great detail by Burke. It's just an endless process of tearing things down because ultimately nothing can stand up against people saying "why" over and over. Eventually there is nothing left but raw Power saying back "because I say so".

If we abandon those then we might just as well bend over and kiss our asses goodbye since any claims to being an enlightened civilization will be shown to be a fraud.

It is the enlightenment principles of individualism, equality and rationality that are the root cause of this. I'm sorry, but the people we oppose here are the children of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. We are the forces of reaction. This happens over and over. People are in favour of the revolution, but want it to stop at the point where it aligns with their youthful dreams. So the second wave feminists are upset at where the 3rd wave feminists have gone and are cast out. It repeats over and over. Only a Stalin can make a revolution stop and set the dogma in stone at that moment. Either be in favour of the revolution and embrace women with penises talking about their sex lives to primary school kids, or oppose the revolution.

But more broadly and speaking to your "critically and tactically important hills", I'm somewhat amused, though encouraged, that even Fafnir more or less endorses the principle.

I am fighting on all the hills.

Bit of tricky question - on which honest men, women, and otherkin may disagree - as to which "hills" are morally defensible - yea, even unto death! ;-) - and which ones aren't.

This is like talking about which hill is most defensible as an endless sea of Mongols sweep by sacking every city, town and hamlet in their path. Effectively that is conceding the war. Worse, you effectively agree with the enemy taking the lands they have conquered, in fact you'll help them defend it, you are just complaining about them going any further. The logic of what they are doing means they won't stop while they can still move forward.

The only thing I can think of that they've tried and failed repeatedly to do is to normalise paedophilia. That is a defensible hill. What is so great and defensible about the hill you want to defend? I guess it's impacting bouji white women, so maybe. Personally I think it'll just slow them down as they use it as an excuse to unperson all the 2nd wave feminists who stand in there way. If they want the hill, they'll take it.

Again, your problem, Steersman, is that you agree with the past couple of hundred+ years of this Mongol hordes progress, you just want them to step in front of this hill. There is really nothing more intrinsically worth defending about this hill than the countless hills that have fallen before it other than that it happens to be the hill before which you want the horde to stop.

[Lsuoma]

It strikes me that this endless discussion about the definition of female and a fixation on definitions is rather like a conversation between somebody who comes from a common law tradition talking to somebody who has no conception of a law outside the Roman law tradition. Most people are effectively operating under a common law understanding of "female". Steersman is absolutely unwilling to consider anything outside the defined and specified Roman Law tradition. His is the Academie Francaise tradition which "gives" rules to the language. The English tradition has always been more about recording usage.

Some questions, if I may?

(sorry if you've already answered these elsewhere)

My gosh! What a garrulous fellow you are! Kissed the blarney stone recently did we? :P ;)

Hey, Jock - he just called you a Mick. Time for a pagga, methinks...

[Matt Cavanaugh]

the mere incidental mention of Jennifer Love Hewitt

I ran into Jennifer Love Hewitt once at a wrap party. I mean ran into. I was headed to the open bar when this drunk bitch pushed past me, slurring 'I haf a vodka toniccc...'

I used to play hockey, she didn't. One hip check later, I'm at the bar and she's stumbling off going 'what the fuck?'

Bartender sez, 'you know that was Jennifer Love Hewitt you just shoved.' I said, "who the hell is Jennifer Love Hewitt? Bourbon and water, please."

Seriously, I'd never heard of the bitch before.

[Bhurzum]

Would be interested in hearing your "workings" - an issue where there are more than a few devils in the details. Failing to deal with them in any sort of a rational - and scientific - fashion is what gives free rein to the demented and deluded, to the sociopaths and psychopaths, to the thugs and psychotics that litter the transgender spectrum.

Alrighty, you asked for it :P

As a child: my mother was a woman/female. To my nascent reason and logic circuitry, a "woman" or "female" was the less angry, shouty of the husband/wife team responsible for taking care of me. Notable characteristics being: breasts, long hair, smell much better than the shouty ogre half of the team and an almost infinite patience in all dealings with my brother, myself and my friends. Through the twin magics of memory and basic logic, the label "woman/female" was quickly and (to the best of my knowledge) unerringly applied to all other less angry, breast-having, fragrant and patient members of the clan.

At this stage of the game, "girl" was added to my internal filing system and used to denote a young "woman" although how or when the jump to full-womanhood took place was a mystery.

Obviously, at this stage of development, my young mind was vulnerable to many errors - fuck knows how I would have reacted if confronted by a full-on 2021 man-in-a-dress with full beard, hands like steam-shovels and the attitude of a grizzly bear nursing an epic anal fissure.

Early School years: Having endured the bulk of my initial schooling, my understanding of what a "woman" actually is had deepened. Somewhat. "Women" are different to "men" in that biology (geared towards reproduction) had equipped us to fill specific roles. At this basic level, I understood that "men" and "women" need to team up in order to produce more young. Each has a specific role to play in the process and both are highly specialized according to nature's grand design.

This stage was when my father gave me "the talk" and stuttered and mumbled his way, red-faced and obsessed with his shoes, through a very patchy and arcane description of the mating act. FYI - at this point, my father (long may it rain paving slabs upon his head) was a many-lettered and highly influential individual - head of an academic institution, offices in several major cities (North and South of the border) and followed by a seemingly endless swarm of bootlickers, obsequious hangers-on and groupies (student nurses). Ironic that such a well established and experienced educator would struggle to explain the birds & bees to his own child. Anyway, fuck him, he's a cunt.

A few days later, my mother, bless her little cotton socks, sat me down and explained everything in gory detail. No birds, no bees, it was penises, vaginas, semen, eggs, flying placentae* and I even got a rudimentary introduction to menstruation. Must admit, it was a wee bit overwhelming although I think that was more to do with my sainted mother speaking about these things in such a clinical and unrelenting manner. Oh, and the "riddle of full-womanhood" was also explained during this talk!

Suffice to say, this "talk" brought me up-to-speed for my age. Probably ahead of the curve if truth be told.

* OK, not actually flying. I may have embellished a few details.

High School: During biology lessons, I was instructed in the finer details of the male/female split - xx/xy, hormones, a much more detailed look at the reproductive process and systems. This is probably "where I am" to this day. Being a bit of a knuckle-dragger (and fanatical boxer/martial artist), I quickly lost interest in anything not related to ramming my fists and feet into the soft, dangly parts of my fellow man. Yes, I'm opening myself up to japery with that last line.

Also, as I've bored you all to death with repeatedly, I already knew my future lay in a snazzy DPM suit, a spanking short haircut and a strong urge to show other people how accurate my rapid-fire is! "Biology" for me was little more than field notes on where to put the most lead.

So, to recap - to my mind, a "woman" is:

1) A human.
2) An adult.
3) Designed by nature to carry then give birth to children.

Obviously there's a whole lot more to "a woman" but these three basic elements are the foundation - the "entry fee" to the club. Once she has gained entry to the club, she can start piling on all of the other elements: neurotic as fuck, overly emotional, shit at driving, prone to losing her shit when confronted by trollish lists like this one, etc.

(I understand that nature, the cruel bitch that she is, sometimes screws people over when it comes to #3, but my general point stands)

Oh, and yes, I'm aware that the holes in my education have possibly got me singing from the wrong songsheet (my own fault) but something tells me I'm not that far off the mark.

This is why I enjoy listening to other (better educated) people chew this over. That and it's fertile grounds for shit-posting.

Anyway, I did warn you that my "workings" would be a bit...well, y'know.

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads ... -gif-5.gif

[Bhurzum]

Hey, Jock - he just called you a Mick. Time for a pagga, methinks...

We don't say "pagga" up here, that's a very English (Geordie) term. No, we tend to say things like "toe his baws" or "claim the cunt" etc.

Just saying...

(sadly, this is very accurate!)

[Steersman]

Would be interested in hearing your "workings" - an issue where there are more than a few devils in the details. Failing to deal with them in any sort of a rational - and scientific - fashion is what gives free rein to the demented and deluded, to the sociopaths and psychopaths, to the thugs and psychotics that litter the transgender spectrum.

Alrighty, you asked for it :P

Thanks for the rather detailed if not "poetic" exposition - "grizzly bear nursing an epic anal fissure" has to qualify as a classic, one for the annals of descriptive metaphors. ;-)

Although you seem to have had better luck than I did in getting a detailed description of the "ways and means" of sex from one's parents; whatever I learned, at least prior to the "main event", was probably picked up by osmosis or reading.

But to cut to the chase, this bit seems close to the crux of the matter, or at least provides something of a solid and well-paved avenue towards it:

So, to recap - to my mind, a "woman" is:

1) A human.
2) An adult.
3) Designed by nature to carry then give birth to children.

Obviously there's a whole lot more to "a woman" but these three basic elements are the foundation - the "entry fee" to the club. Once she has gained entry to the club, she can start piling on all of the other elements: neurotic as fuck, overly emotional, shit at driving, prone to losing her shit when confronted by trollish lists like this one, etc.

And your "entry fee" phrase is a good start, although I might emphasize at the outset that the convention is that your item #3 boils down to "female" - if that's not the case then Jenner & Bergdorf might reasonably qualify.

But it's a very good start, not least because it raises a number of quite thorny if not "pregnant" questions - so to speak: which "parts" are the entry fee, and which parts are the window dressing, the gingerbread over the "witch's house in the woods" ;-) that can be absent or non-essential.

But consider an analogy with the category "teenager" and try answering these questions:

• What is the "entry fee" to qualify as a teenager, what is the trait that ALL teenagers have in common?
• What might be "window dressing", traits that are not at all essential to qualify for that "membership card"?

And of course the answers are (ta da! ;-) ):

► Show Spoiler

• Being 13 to 19 inclusive.
• Being female, male, black, brown, pink with purple polka dots, Armenian, British, even Scottish aren't excluded ;-) , Spanish, etc, etc. etc.

Same thing with both "male" and "female": the entry fee, the essential trait that ALL males and ALL females have in common is having either functional testicles or functional ovaries. If people - or members of literally millions of sexually reproducing species, for that matter - have that "entry fee" then they can "wear the colours". If they don't then they can't.

All of the other traits - "neurotic as fuck", "overly emotional", all those "other elements" that you spoke of - are the window dressing that both males and females can exhibit, although they don't have to be exhibited to get one's "membership card". Even if some of those "window dressing" traits are more common in one sex than the other. Which is more or less what defines different genders.

But what I'm calling "window dressing" or "gingerbread" on witch's or warlock's houses, is what philosophers, rather long-windedly, call "accidental properties" while they call those "entry fees" the essential properties. Fairly decent article here, although the first couple of paragraphs are more or less sufficient, the rest being a muddying of the waters and/or some evidence of the authors being paid by the word:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/esse ... ccidental/

(I understand that nature, the cruel bitch that she is, sometimes screws people over when it comes to #3, but my general point stands)

Oh, and yes, I'm aware that the holes in my education have possibly got me singing from the wrong songsheet (my own fault) but something tells me I'm not that far off the mark.

"women" - nominally speaking or otherwise - sure seem to have, in general, wound up with the short end of the stick in the reproductive department. Not sure that the supposed joys of motherhood are adequate compensation, though many seem to think that's the case.

But not entirely "the wrong songsheet", or at least certainly not a case that you're the only one singing from it ;-)

Complex phenomenon in many ways, tied-up in our "identities", our senses of self. That many of the transgendered have a more overtly pathological variation on that does not mean that many actual men and women don't have versions or conceptions of "self" that are almost as bad or as problematic - various "gender stereotypes" in particular.

But a case in point is Maya Forstater who, for all her commendable tenacity in the face of transgender thuggery, has insisted - contrary to logic and biological facts - that sex is immutable, although she's hardly unique in that regard:

GoogleDrive_MayaForstater_Judgement_Pt83_1C.jpg

(91.32 KiB) Downloaded 94 times

A fairly decent if not rather brilliant and quite profound article at Psychology Today by Robert King on "What is Biological Sex" that addresses that claim in some detail here:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ogical-sex

And it may even help to answer any of your still outstanding questions ;-) But of particular note:

Humans love categories, and humans love distinctions. That’s how we’ve evolved to think. Categories—nouns and adjectives—are quick ways to sort the world into appropriate emotional, and behavioral responses. ....

None of this categorizing is a problem unless we start insisting that these categories are deeply reflective of external nature. It’s not, we like to think, that some categories are just useful, or helpful, or shorthand filing systems admitting of exceptions—but that they are essences built into the very fabric of reality. ....

I can hardly honor some of what is going on online with the word “debate.” It is too personal, too heated, and too painful. Issues of identity and safety are often like this. However, I would like to offer one perspective on the issue of who is, or is not, essentially a man, or essentially a woman.

No one.

Both sides are wrong.

No one has the essence of maleness or femaleness, for one simple reason: Since the 17th century, what science has been showing, in every single field, is that the folk notion of an “essence” is not reflected in reality. There are no essences in nature. For the last three hundred years or so, the advance of science has been in lockstep with the insight that is what really exists are processes, not essences.

"male" and "female" are not things in themselves. They're only labels that denote those individuals who have or exhibit particular, but quite transitory, biological capabilities or processes - i.e., functional gonads or abilities to produce either of two types of gametes as the "entry fees" - that are essential to the reproductive process. But, as King argues, turning them into "immutable" identities, thinking that they're based on some sort of "mythic essence", is "causing a lot of grief."

Amen to that.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Hey, Jock - he just called you a Mick. Time for a pagga, methinks...

We don't say "pagga" up here, that's a very English (Geordie) term. No, we tend to say things like "toe his baws" or "claim the cunt" etc.

Just saying...

(sadly, this is very accurate!)

Geez, how would he react if there were nae rolls?

[Bhurzum]

Geez, how would he react if there were nae rolls?

Or if he'd been eating lassie's chocolate...

[Steersman]

Would be interested in hearing your "workings" - an issue where there are more than a few devils in the details. Failing to deal with them in any sort of a rational - and scientific - fashion is what gives free rein to the demented and deluded, to the sociopaths and psychopaths, to the thugs and psychotics that litter the transgender spectrum.

That you can define the core elements of society on rationalism is false, or rather that you can do it without everything turning to shit is false.

And your evidence and argument for that is what? "Ipse dixit"?

No doubt it's something of an age-old battle between "rationalism" and "magical thinking". Lewontin's review of Sagan's Demon-Haunted World elaborates:

http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/ ... Review.htm

What is at stake here is a deep problem in democratic self-governance. In Plato's most modern of Dialogues, the Gorgias, there is a struggle between Socrates, with whom we are meant to sympathize, and his opponents, Gorgias and Callicles, over the relative virtues of rhetoric and technical expertise. What Socrates and Gorgias agree on is that the mass of citizens are incompetent to make reasoned decisions on justice and public policy, but that they must be swayed by rhetorical argument or guided by the authority of experts.

That many "experts" have "beclowned themselves" over Covid, and that many other such experts in other fields are in the same boat, is no reason to throw our lots in with the irrational - that's the problem, not a solution as you seem to "think". It is only that the "mass of citizens" needs a better education - which will inevitably happen come the Revolution and re-education camps ... ;-)

But generally speaking, the Enlightenment has already done a fairly good though hardly perfect job at that.

This was one of the foundational errors of the French revolution as explained in great detail by Burke. It's just an endless process of tearing things down because ultimately nothing can stand up against people saying "why" over and over. Eventually there is nothing left but raw Power saying back "because I say so".

Don't think you have a clue how science works - probably due, in part, to the nature of "The Two Cultures" beast.

The bottom line - the "final answer" to that "why" of yours - is because it does work. Science creates models that more or less correspond to the "real world":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Which allows us to predict and control our environment to some degree. Richard Feynman justifiably said, “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics”. But it works - and rather well; that we communicate instantaneously across thousands of miles is proof of that.

But if those people asking that question have a better model that works as well or better then I'm sure "Science" and scientists will welcome them with open arms - do they? :think: :roll:

All they have is little better than the cargo-cult-science which you seem all too ready to endorse. You look to be as bad as the New Zealanders who apparently now want to teach Maori “ways of knowing” as science in NZ universities:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/ ... versities/

If we abandon those then we might just as well bend over and kiss our asses goodbye since any claims to being an enlightened civilization will be shown to be a fraud.

It is the enlightenment principles of individualism, equality and rationality that are the root cause of this.

And you want to replace that with what? With the collective - with you in charge? With inequalities, and irrationalism? With more "magical thinking"?

Think you need to give your head a shake.

But more broadly and speaking to your "critically and tactically important hills", I'm somewhat amused, though encouraged, that even Fafnir more or less endorses the principle.

I am fighting on all the hills.

Maybe. But given your argument that it's "the enlightenment principles of individualism, equality and rationality that are the root cause of this", one might reasonably wonder whether you're on the side that's fighting against those principles.

<snip>

Again, your problem, Steersman, is that you agree with the past couple of hundred+ years of this Mongol hordes progress, you just want them to step in front of this hill. There is really nothing more intrinsically worth defending about this hill than the countless hills that have fallen before it other than that it happens to be the hill before which you want the horde to stop.

Don't think you're paying attention.

I've said repeatedly - even in my last couple of posts - that the transgender clusterfuck is only the tip of the iceberg, even if that's where the rubber most saliently meets the road, where the hull of the Titanic is being breached - below the water line.

But the bulk of that "iceberg" is a profoundly and "virulently anti-intellectual and anti-science sentiment" accompanied by a tendency to put what feels good over what's true, to allow the tyranny of the subjective to trump the objective. All of which you seem all too quick to subscribe to, endorse, or promote.

[fafnir]

Would be interested in hearing your "workings" - an issue where there are more than a few devils in the details. Failing to deal with them in any sort of a rational - and scientific - fashion is what gives free rein to the demented and deluded, to the sociopaths and psychopaths, to the thugs and psychotics that litter the transgender spectrum.

That you can define the core elements of society on rationalism is false, or rather that you can do it without everything turning to shit is false.

And your evidence and argument for that is what? "Ipse dixit"?

Well, for starters I think the issue is more that it has never been demonstrated that you can build a society on rationalist principles, but people have dogmatically assumed you can and carried on as if it was obvious that you could. Effectively people have mapped the mode of thought that has been successful in understanding and manipulating the natural world onto running human society with disasterous consequences.

As I mentioned in my post, the French Revolution was a rationalist project. The state religion was the Cult of Reason. See Burke for a fully worked out critique, but essentially the problem is that society and it's institutions and customs are far too complicated and interconnected a system for anybody to understand well enough to think you could tear things down and replace them based on rationalism.

In many ways Jordan Peterson is just restating Burke in many of his arguments. Real human institutions and social customs gradually evolve over long periods of time. It's just not practically possible to run an experiment to find out what the long term impact of deconstructing sex and gender on a society are without going so far into it that you can't go back. Even then, there are always so many other variables involved that who can really say. Are we going to do a double blind study to find out?

That we approach these kinds of things based on principles of rationality is untrue and could never be true. The illusion that we do is a justification for implementing the wider humanist, liberal program.

Have you read any anti-liberal books? In terms of what you quote, you always mention the priests of the humanist, sceptic, liberal church.

No doubt it's something of an age-old battle between "rationalism" and "magical thinking".

In this context, rationalism is a form of magical thinking.

That many "experts" have "beclowned themselves" over Covid, and that many other such experts in other fields are in the same boat, is no reason to throw our lots in with the irrational - that's the problem, not a solution as you seem to "think".

That is mostly a different conversation.

It is only that the "mass of citizens" needs a better education - which will inevitably happen come the Revolution and re-education camps ... ;-)

No, that isn't the problem at all. Plus, I think you'll find that it's the better educated amongst us who are more keen on "trans-women are women", "all white people are racist" and other such insanity. The great mass of people never have been, and show no signs of ever being, sufficiently knowledgeable or motivated to rationally engage with an informed understanding of the world. Cutting down on educating people would do a lot to make this madness go away. Any solution that involves your average man in the street having a clue what is going on beyond the small scope of their everyday life, framed by narratives and "facts" that they will never check, is a fantasy.

But generally speaking, the Enlightenment has already done a fairly good though hardly perfect job at that.

The enlightenment has been great at hard sciences. It's crap when it get's into culture and morality though because it's founding principles are incoherent and contradictory and the notion of man that they were founded upon is just an earlier version of the "nice idea wrong species" criticism of Communist man. You have a European Man they they EU will have to make to realise it's vision in the writing of the founders of the proto-EU. For all these utopian visions, man has to become other than he has always been.

The thing with all those Marxist intellectuals is that as much as we disagree with them, they weren't stupid people. There are contradictions in the world view that came out of the enlightenment. They want to follow those contradictions through, Gilbert and Sullivan style, and play out the contradiction to the point where a miracle occurs and somehow we find that the contradiction wasn't a contradiction at all. I question whether that is possible, and if it is whether it leads anywhere I would want to go.

This was one of the foundational errors of the French revolution as explained in great detail by Burke. It's just an endless process of tearing things down because ultimately nothing can stand up against people saying "why" over and over. Eventually there is nothing left but raw Power saying back "because I say so".

Don't think you have a clue how science works - probably due, in part, to the nature of "The Two Cultures" beast.

The bottom line - the "final answer" to that "why" of yours - is because it does work.

It works for hard science. It doesn't give you a basis for building a civilisation on because ultimately no institution or custom can justify itself on rationalist grounds, so all of them can be thrown down at any moment.

One of the reasons given by Horkheimer for inventing the Critical Theory we hear so much about today was because Traditional Theory wasn't up to the task of explaining and solving the societal problems they wanted to solve. To make social questions amenable to the scientific method you have to simplify them to the point of being almost pointless, or chose only the small subset of questions that are answerable. Answering complicated problems about society with any degree of certainty is incredibly difficult bordering on the impossible. What you can do though is build up an academic, model laden, rationalist looking justification for the course of action you wanted to take anyway.

Ours is a world of theory and models. The critical race folks have plenty of theory layered on model layered on theory. The problem is that it's unfalsifiable.

The scientific method works very well within a domain. Outside that domain it falls apart.

Which allows us to predict and control our environment to some degree.

It allows us to predict and control the aspects of our environment that the scientific method is well suited for predicting and controlling. Try using the scientific method to predict the impact over 50 years of the UK leaving the EU, or letting in a million Somalis, or redefining female to include men who want to be women..... You can't. It isn't possible. Nobody understands enough, or can understand enough, to make these decisions based on rationalism or Science. Models and projections are a fig leaf hiding the non-rational basis for these decisions. They are the modern version of the priest examining entrails.

Richard Feynman justifiably said, “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics”. But it works - and rather well; that we communicate instantaneously across thousands of miles is proof of that.

Quantum mechanics is a very easy and solvable problem compared to the ones I mentioned above.

All they have is little better than the cargo-cult-science which you seem all too ready to endorse.

Science and rationalism can't answer the important questions here. The authors you continually quote spent the 90s and early 00's working to tear down what was left of the traditional culture that gave answers in this space. That has allowed the forces of humanism, of progressive liberalism, of liberte, egaite, fraternite to advance. Now, we are complaining about the results.

You look to be as bad as the New Zealanders who apparently now want to teach Maori “ways of knowing” as science in NZ universities.

You need to read a book that doesn't implicitly assume the liberal frame and view the current times as a continuation of the battle with the religious right in the 90s. Also, you muddle ways of knowing in terms of science and the natural world with ways of knowing in terms of ethics, social policy, and so forth. Looking at this from an AI perspective... the Scientific method and rationalism are like the expert systems solution to problem solving. Terrific for some things, terrible at others. "Other ways of knowing" are more like neural nets/machine learning.... good for a different domain of problems.

If we abandon those then we might just as well bend over and kiss our asses goodbye since any claims to being an enlightened civilization will be shown to be a fraud.

It is the enlightenment principles of individualism, equality and rationality that are the root cause of this.

And you want to replace that with what? With the collective - with you in charge? With inequalities, and irrationalism? With more "magical thinking"?

Think you need to give your head a shake.

Read a book by somebody other than Pinker once in a while.

But more broadly and speaking to your "critically and tactically important hills", I'm somewhat amused, though encouraged, that even Fafnir more or less endorses the principle.

I am fighting on all the hills.

Maybe. But given your argument that it's "the enlightenment principles of individualism, equality and rationality that are the root cause of this", one might reasonably wonder whether you're on the side that's fighting against those principles.

Certainly. I thought I had made that clear repeatedly.

Again, your problem, Steersman, is that you agree with the past couple of hundred+ years of this Mongol hordes progress, you just want them to step in front of this hill. There is really nothing more intrinsically worth defending about this hill than the countless hills that have fallen before it other than that it happens to be the hill before which you want the horde to stop.

Don't think you're paying attention.

I've said repeatedly - even in my last couple of posts - that the transgender clusterfuck is only the tip of the iceberg, even if that's where the rubber most saliently meets the road, where the hull of the Titanic is being breached - below the water line.

But the bulk of that "iceberg" is a profoundly and "virulently anti-intellectual and anti-science sentiment" accompanied by a tendency to put what feels good over what's true, to allow the tyranny of the subjective to trump the objective. All of which you seem all too quick to subscribe to, endorse, or promote.

No. The rest of the iceberg is Pinker, Dawkins, Sagan and all the other horsemen of the apocalypse who went before them. What we are seeing now is the inevitable conclusion of implementing what they called for. They might not like where its led, but the vanguard of the revolution rarely do like it when the next wave sweeps past them and they find that they are now reactionaries who have to be purged.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Thoughts, Dog?

New York is not a city of opportunity. It was 20 years ago. It was 10 years ago. But no longer is it the place for young people to come and make their fortunes and their way in the world. Policy is being designed to please intellectually ossified Park Avenue leftists, whose main concern at their advanced stage of life is not dying. That is why New York is willing to take any ridiculous precaution and suspend most of life itself for their sake. New York has become the perfect city for old affluence to spend its declining years. It is a gigantic, expensive geriatric ward.
....
New York, to revive itself, must offer overwhelming attractions for youth and opportunity. It specialized in precisely that for over a hundred years. But today, it offers up the ashes of yesterdays’ opportunity, to be “enjoyed” by yesterdays’ burnt-up youth—shuffling down the streets, blinking at the sunlight and clutching their masks in a constant state of bleary-minded paranoia.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/21/bye-bye-new-york/

[Lsuoma]

I see that fafnobot has learned a lot from the Steersbot...

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The rest of the iceberg is Pinker, Dawkins, Sagan and all the other horsemen of the apocalypse who went before them. What we are seeing now is the inevitable conclusion of implementing what they called for. They might not like where its led, but the vanguard of the revolution rarely do like it when the next wave sweeps past them and they find that they are now reactionaries who have to be purged.

The great error of 'progressives', repeated since the French Revolution at least, is to imagine they can solve a given problem by tweaking one setting, adjusting one dial, on the great complex machine without perturbing the entire machinery. They then tweak another setting to fix the new problem they created with their fiddling, and so on and so on.

[Lsuoma]

Thoughts, Dog?

New York is not a city of opportunity. It was 20 years ago. It was 10 years ago. But no longer is it the place for young people to come and make their fortunes and their way in the world. Policy is being designed to please intellectually ossified Park Avenue leftists, whose main concern at their advanced stage of life is not dying. That is why New York is willing to take any ridiculous precaution and suspend most of life itself for their sake. New York has become the perfect city for old affluence to spend its declining years. It is a gigantic, expensive geriatric ward.
....
New York, to revive itself, must offer overwhelming attractions for youth and opportunity. It specialized in precisely that for over a hundred years. But today, it offers up the ashes of yesterdays’ opportunity, to be “enjoyed” by yesterdays’ burnt-up youth—shuffling down the streets, blinking at the sunlight and clutching their masks in a constant state of bleary-minded paranoia.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/21/bye-bye-new-york/

Don't forget all the dark stores that are springing up too. Destroying the feel of neighborhoods. Lots of Koreans (stores, not people) disappearing.

[fafnir]

The rest of the iceberg is Pinker, Dawkins, Sagan and all the other horsemen of the apocalypse who went before them. What we are seeing now is the inevitable conclusion of implementing what they called for. They might not like where its led, but the vanguard of the revolution rarely do like it when the next wave sweeps past them and they find that they are now reactionaries who have to be purged.

The great error of 'progressives', repeated since the French Revolution at least, is to imagine they can solve a given problem by tweaking one setting, adjusting one dial, on the great complex machine without perturbing the entire machinery. They then tweak another setting to fix the new problem they created with their fiddling, and so on and so on.

I agree with a lot of that. Not so long ago I was reading The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities by Mearsheimer. I'm pretty sure it's in there that he divides liberals in two, though it's not original to him. Vivendi Liberals (in a Sowell sense, that is liberals with the tragic, constrained vision) and Progressive Liberals (the unconstrained vision). Progressive Liberals are liberals, that is to say the inheritors of the French and American revolutions, who believe government can implement their utopian vision of John Lennon's Imagine. Effectively the Vivendi liberals are finished as a political force by the Civil War, and certainly by FDR. Effectively Liberalism has meant Progressive Liberalism ever since. Marxism, cultural Marxism etc etc etc are just a succession of plans for using the State to implement the Progressive Liberal vision.

I would say that more than whatever tweaking they may do.... (Was implementing Civil Rights tweaking? Was the Sexual Revolution tweaking? - Maybe by the standards of the French Revolution...) a more fundamental error is thinking that government is far more able than it is to impose solutions to intractable human problems. You see this in endless discussions about "why can't we just end poverty/racial inequalities/gender inequalities?". Progressives then need to find people to blame for the failure of their promises and centralise more power in order to finally be able to deliver on them, which of course they can't.

[fafnir]

I see that fafnobot has learned a lot from the Steersbot...

At least it's a different record. Plus, my views are evolving. It's been a long journey since my days as a normie poster on the JREF making the sort of arguments Steersman makes from the Pinker position, but the past few years, and a lot of reading over the past few months have transformed my opinions. Who knows, maybe, with more reading, I will be agreeing with Steersman 6 months from now and back to quoting Pinker?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

the inheritors of the French and American revolutions, who believe government can implement their utopian vision of John Lennon's Imagine.

Unlike the French revolutionaries, who believed Man's nature is malleable and can be molded into any desired form by wise, benevolent rule, the Founders and Framers recognized that human nature is irreparably flawed, thus built into our form of government safeguard sto protect against the excesses of human nature.

And lo -- the French on their Fifth Republic while our first is still running like an old Chevy 454.

...certainly by FDR.

My estimation of FDR has steadily sunk to a near complete nadir over the decades. Of course, as a youth I received the propaganda that he was a towering giant hero savior, having ended the Depression and won the war. (Only my grandfather hated FDR, never forgiving him for the backroom finagling to snatch the nomination from the populist Al Smith.)
In truth, he accomplished neither, and was a pathological narcissist with limitless hubris.

Was implementing Civil Rights tweaking? Was the Sexual Revolution tweaking?

Most definitely. Regarding the former, cf. Christopher Caldwell's The Age of Entitlement, or anything by Sowell or Charles Murray.

Re. the latter, Peterson has spoken at length on how the widespread introduction of birth control for woman, albeit a boon in and of itself, greatly perturbed the social contract and led eventually to, inter alia, today's moral decadence and incel phenomenon.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Either Coyne has suddenly remembered how population genetics and mutations in infectious diseases works, or he lurks the Pit.

Two pieces of good Covid-10 news in the face of the Christmas surges and lockdowns. First, research in South Africa shows that the omicron variant may be less severe than thought—even less severe than the delta variant....



Nevertheless, he and his WEITards are still cowering under the bed in fear of OMI. From "Gravel-Inspector", one of the most consistently tarded of the lot:

First, research in South Africa shows that the omicron variant may be less severe than thought—even less severe than the delta variant
The warnings coming from the UK’s health authorities though point out that even if Omicron results in (say) 50% of the hospitalisations, if the rapid spread results in 250-350% of the case numbers, you’re still going to have a severe problem.
The speed at which case numbers are increasing in the UK – with a strong testing basis – does not bode well. As that kicks off in America – within the “festive” week – that’s going to give some bad numbers.

When no wave of hospitalizations or deaths occur, they will, naturally, pretend their dire predictions were never made, and move onto the next piece of panic porn.

[fafnir]

the inheritors of the French and American revolutions, who believe government can implement their utopian vision of John Lennon's Imagine.

Unlike the French revolutionaries, who believed Man's nature is malleable and can be molded into any desired form by wise, benevolent rule, the Founders and Framers recognized that human nature is irreparably flawed, thus built into our form of government safeguard sto protect against the excesses of human nature.

And lo -- the French on their Fifth Republic while our first is still running like an old Chevy 454.

I agree. Many, though I think perhaps not all, of the Founders were vivendi liberals. Ultimately they lost. No question they slowed down, and to some degree continue to slow down, the progressives. Or possibly they just serve to prevent the progressives driving the car completely off the road by taking over the wheel every once in a while?

...certainly by FDR.

My estimation of FDR has steadily sunk to a near complete nadir over the decades. Of course, as a youth I received the propaganda that he was a towering giant hero savior, having ended the Depression and won the war. (Only my grandfather hated FDR, never forgiving him for the backroom finagling to snatch the nomination from the populist Al Smith.)
In truth, he accomplished neither, and was a pathological narcissist with limitless hubris.

We agree on this. The Austrian Economics view is that he, and the actions of the FED, are the reason the Great Depression lasted as long as it did. You also have the Progressive view at play that big government was needed to solve big problems leading to a positive view of Communism as the system of the future and informing the design of the post WW2 global order. I haven't read up on this, but I saw a claim a few weeks ago that FDR decided to favour Mao over Chiang Kai Shek leading to modern China.

In the UK, the war economy with big government directing a huge amount of the economy was still going until Thatcher came in and smashed it in the late 70s and 80s. Communism light. Really, at the end of the day.... what is Communism in practice but the victory of progressive liberalism being slowly devoured by the bureaucracy it build to implement utopia. We still have big chunks of welfare state in the UK dragging it's decaying 80 year old corpse around, of course.

Was implementing Civil Rights tweaking? Was the Sexual Revolution tweaking?

Most definitely. Regarding the former, cf. Christopher Caldwell's The Age of Entitlement, or anything by Sowell or Charles Murray.

Re. the latter, Peterson has spoken at length on how the widespread introduction of birth control for woman, albeit a boon in and of itself, greatly perturbed the social contract and led eventually to, inter alia, today's moral decadence and incel phenomenon.

It's a hugely interesting area. Based on those authors, I think I am probably a little further down the anti-Liberal rabbit hole than you. I've read quite a bit of Sowell and a little Murray. One Christmas book recommendation.... Democracy: The God That Failed by Hoppe. It takes the Sowell economics based way of looking at things and applies it to Democracy.

It's a hard read, and I'm not sure I necessarily grasp it well enough to own or defend it's conclusions.... but I just finished the first book of Spengler's The Decline of the West. It really is quite stunning. He was a German writing just before WW1 and becoming hugely popular just after. Basically his thesis was that cultures have particular spirits that perceive the world in fundamentally different ways. He goes through the science, mathematics, art and so on of different civilizations. Those comparisons were the bits that impressed me most, absolutely virtuoso stuff. As predictions go, it's not looking so bad so far.

[fafnir]

First, research in South Africa shows that the omicron variant may be less severe than thought—even less severe than the delta variant
The warnings coming from the UK’s health authorities though point out that even if Omicron results in (say) 50% of the hospitalisations, if the rapid spread results in 250-350% of the case numbers, you’re still going to have a severe problem.
The speed at which case numbers are increasing in the UK – with a strong testing basis – does not bode well. As that kicks off in America – within the “festive” week – that’s going to give some bad numbers.

They are beyond retarded. Everybody in the UK has been leaned on to get tested super often. Christmas get togethers mean that people have to take tests to calm worried relatives. There have been more PCR tests taken in my family in the past month than in the preceding year.

[fafnir]

My wife has had two PCR tests this past week and is convinced she has it. She's feeling better now, so all the second test may be good for is giving her an excuse to avoid my family. It is an ill wind....

[Matt Cavanaugh]

t I just finished the first book of Spengler's The Decline of the West. It really is quite stunning. He was a German writing just before WW1 and becoming hugely popular just after. Basically his thesis was that cultures have particular spirits that perceive the world in fundamentally different ways. He goes through the science, mathematics, art and so on of different civilizations. Those comparisons were the bits that impressed me most, absolutely virtuoso stuff. As predictions go, it's not looking so bad so far.

I read Untergang des Westens a very long time ago, in German. I was also reading a bit of Toynbee and Shumpeter at the time, who are both complete gonks, so I may have them muddled a bit in my mind with Spengler.

[John D]

Okay... so... wow. Time for an update.

First... I want to say that I am NOT GAY. I do not have any sexual attraction to men. I think I would make a very good gay. I have a sweet and tender voice. I like folk music and play acoustic guitar. I like Broadway musicals and opera. I would have made an excellent gay... but... I am not gay in the slightest. I would have been a happy and gay sort of gay. But... this is not meant to be.

I have also had an anal fissure. This was not caused by anyone (including me) sticking something in my ass. It was a result of some very nasty shits. It took months for it to heal and I was only weeks away from surgery. Imagine... every time you shit you split open your asshole so that the muscle is exposed. You wipe up a pile of blood. Then... for the next two hours you are in such pain that you sweat and rock back and forth. The next day you do it again. I finally healed the gash by being excessively careful with my pushing and cleaning from a BM. Only cleaned with water. Did not pushing during a BM. So... in conclusion... I would be a really bad gay. There will be NO THINGS SHOVED ITNO MY ASSHOLE!!!! EVER!

Second... anyone who thinks they can re-make West Side Story for film is a fucking D-bag. Fuck this idea. It would be like someone remaking Casablanca or the Wizard of Oz. Fuck Off. I don't even want to watch it. Now... I have seen WSS three times live in a theatre... and have enjoy each performance, but the idea that we need a new film version is... well... fuck... just fucking shoot me.

Okay... next. My wife and oldest daughter are now convinced I am autistic. Yep.... the bitches have diagnosed me. We discussed this at length last night. My oldest daughter says she can now accept me since I am obviously autistic. Prior to her diagnosing me as autistic I was simply evil in her mind. Now that I have a mental disorder she can accept me for what I am... a CIS-male autistic with some OCD. The idea that it is important for me to arrive on time, work on projects before they are actually due, and organize my work bench is simply an expression of my mental disorder. NORMAL people do not arrive on time or keep a clean work space. NORMAL people wait till the last minute to do things and they are disorganized.

When I suggested that it is not a good idea to describe every feature of someone's personality as a mental disorder my ladies explained that the disorder is not really a disorder. It is not like a mental disorder is really a disorder. It is neuro-atypical. Neuro-typical is just some kind of fake thing that is used as a model that stands against anyone who has any kind of personality. Personality is not allowed. Mental disease is the only explanation.

Apparently, I use my weaponized autism to manage all my social interactions. My social interactions are all part of my autistic scheme on "how to get along with people". The reason I succeed in my job is that my weaponized autism allows me to plan and plot how others will react. Well... what can I say... it pays the bills.

Also, my ladies say I am very ethical. So... I guess this is good. I am honest and hard working and fulfill my duties to others. So... the autism thing doesn't appear to make me a cold hearted monster.

I was also instructed last night that autistic people such as myself can be very emotional and sensitive to others. That we autistics can be caring and sensitive and duty bound.

What we are NOT is empathetic. We do not do is simply act of our feelings. We have to think about our feeling before we act. Normal people simply act on their feelings. A normal person feels a thing and then does it. No thinking is involved. I was told by my wife that she looses patience with me when I am talking to our therapist about my feelings. My wife thinks it takes too long for me to describe how I feel. My daughter insists this is a sign of my autism. Indeed... the only people who take time to describe their feelings are autistic people. Aren't we special.

Finally (yes this will end)... my daughter's ex-"girlfriend" is back in my daughter's life. Now, since my daughter is a pan-sexual poly-amorous queer person... well... I assumed old girlfriends where really never pushed aside. Right? It's like... all bets are always on. So... I served dinner for said old "girl-friend" last night and ... at the end of the night.... my ladies say "Well... Nat and Jessi are back together... didn't you notice?" and I said, like "Well... you are polyamorous so I never thought you would be done with Jessi". "You and Jessi just want to get back together and fuck... and that's okay." So... they look at me like I am nuts or something. And... just a bit more story... Jessi used to be a cute, slightly plump young lady that dressed like a dyke who also wanted to use the "they/them" pronouns. "They" don't let their daughter call "them" mom. They must be addressed as "yinnie" by their child (cause that will fix things). and... Jessi has obviously been on steroids, because this slightly plump lesbian has turned into a fat bearded lady. 100 pounds over weight, tattoos, a stupid scruffy beard and a voice like Gilbert Godfried.... they all get voices like Gilbert Gotfried. WTF. And my daughter is in love.... with a fat scruffy bearded Gilbert Godfired.

Haha. Holy fuck.

PS - Jessi's daughter is one the the smartest 3rd graders I have ever met... big vocabulary.. sarcastic jokes that made us all laugh... always watching other people's behavior. Anyway.... an interesting day.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

There have been more PCR tests taken in my family in the past month than in the preceding year.

Each positive one of which is recorded as a 'case', leading to news reports of an ominous surge in 'cases', leading to even more worried individuals getting tested ...

[Matt Cavanaugh]

First... I want to say that I am NOT GAY.

Fair enough. Sorry I insinuated you were.

I like Broadway musicals and opera.

Doh! You had me fooled there for a minute, you homo.


Here's a simple test. If this makes you cry, you're gay:




If it makes you cry, 'PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP!!!', you're straight.

(If you're pretend-crying to get laid, you're also straight, but a sneaky fucker manlet.)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

My oldest daughter says she can now accept me since I am obviously autistic.

Imagine how much she'll love you when she finds out you're gay.

[Service Dog]

Thoughts, Dog?

New York is not a city of opportunity. It was 20 years ago. It was 10 years ago. But no longer is it the place for young people to come and make their fortunes and their way in the world. Policy is being designed to please intellectually ossified Park Avenue leftists, whose main concern at their advanced stage of life is not dying. That is why New York is willing to take any ridiculous precaution and suspend most of life itself for their sake. New York has become the perfect city for old affluence to spend its declining years. It is a gigantic, expensive geriatric ward.
....
New York, to revive itself, must offer overwhelming attractions for youth and opportunity. It specialized in precisely that for over a hundred years. But today, it offers up the ashes of yesterdays’ opportunity, to be “enjoyed” by yesterdays’ burnt-up youth—shuffling down the streets, blinking at the sunlight and clutching their masks in a constant state of bleary-minded paranoia.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/21/bye-bye-new-york/

Initial impression-- just from this excerpt--

NYC has always been a haven for geriatric fatcats. They're part of the eco-system. 'The young' are still thriving here-- with the same nightlife, social scene, street fashion, semi-legal entrepreneurial spirit... as long as we're talking-about poor kids arriving from the Dominican Republic, to party in their own discos. Even a young broke white skateboarder will find a 'scene'... outside Manhattan in Bushwick.

New York has always been over-regulated & over-taxed... for small, edgy start-up businesses... such as bars & restaurants. The current covid restrictions have amplified this... to absolute absurdity. Two girls recently started a small 'vegan cheese' shop. <--a quirky little bohemian business which probably-couldn't exist elsewhere/ but might expand to a global industry someday. They complied in every way-- probably had money & business-plan help from wealthy parents. Then suddenly there's a paper sign taped on their door: "Closing Immediately due to Emergency". They got double-vaxed & boosted... complied with mandatory Covid testing... and both tested positive. No Christmas season sales for them: they're finished. The well-established fancy restaurant Balthazar met a similar fate: after all the masking/ no indoor service/ socially-distant seating/ vax mandates for employees/ show-me-your-papers for customers... their remaining employees worked long shifts to keep the place open. Then somebody gets a runny nose & everybody has to stand in line for hours to get tested-- and so-many asymptomatic employees tested-positive... that they were forced to shut their doors. (GF says there's an article on Gothamist.com about this incident. I'm paraphrasing her paraphrasing of it.)

Another thought-- is the quality of the traditional-youth may have changed or diminished. Maybe NYC isn't letting them down/maybe they aren't motivated to blaze their own trails. I think there was always a steady supply of young dullards arriving. The brightest ones might now be welcomed Too Warmly: immediately hired to work for Nike's marketing department, or Spotify, or become a paid #influencer... co-opted into a bland system/ rather than disrupting it from outside.

Now I'll actually read the article.

[John D]

First... I want to say that I am NOT GAY.

Fair enough. Sorry I insinuated you were.

I like Broadway musicals and opera.

Doh! You had me fooled there for a minute, you homo.


Here's a simple test. If this makes you cry, you're gay:




If it makes you cry, 'PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP!!!', you're straight.

(If you're pretend-crying to get laid, you're also straight, but a sneaky fucker manlet.)

So. I passed your test. Streisand is one of my least favorite "Broadway" singers. She hits all the notes and has an okay vibrato... but... well.. she makes me want to walk out. Not good. I don't really mind the Jew nose and the Jew fro. I just don't like her style. I really can't put my finger on why... but I have never been a Streisand fan. Maybe I am just not gay enough to like Streisand, Full pass.

But... of course... now that I have been diagnosed as autistic it is certainly in my wheel-house to fake cry so I can get laid... The world is now my oyster.

[fafnir]

I read Untergang des Westens a very long time ago, in German. I was also reading a bit of Toynbee and Shumpeter at the time, who are both complete gonks, so I may have them muddled a bit in my mind with Spengler.

I keep feeling like I haven't read enough Kant to understand Spengler properly. I bow to your superior knowledge, having read him in German.

[Stankeye]

I see that fafnobot has learned a lot from the Steersbot...

At least it's a different record. Plus, my views are evolving. It's been a long journey since my days as a normie poster on the JREF making the sort of arguments Steersman makes from the Pinker position, but the past few years, and a lot of reading over the past few months have transformed my opinions. Who knows, maybe, with more reading, I will be agreeing with Steersman 6 months from now and back to quoting Pinker?

I like reading your thoughts and perspectives. Like John sometimes laments, we got rid of religion too quickly it seems.

Lsuoma is just being 'Statler and Waldorf', which seems to be most of his style lately. It's fun to watch the ebb and flow of the Pit.

[John D]

Being gay would also make my wife happy since it would help explain why we are no longer having sex. I am tempted to "come out" shortly. I do love how Eddy Redmayne does this. I could tell everyone I am in love with Eddie.

[fafnir]

<snip> There will be NO THINGS SHOVED ITNO MY ASSHOLE!!!! EVER!

So you are saying you're a top? That's the straight end of being gay. Embrace it.

Second... anyone who thinks they can re-make West Side Story for film is a fucking D-bag. Fuck this idea. It would be like someone remaking Casablanca or the Wizard of Oz. Fuck Off. I don't even want to watch it. Now... I have seen WSS three times live in a theatre... and have enjoy each performance, but the idea that we need a new film version is... well... fuck... just fucking shoot me.

Casablanca was remade. Barb Wire, 1996. Pamela Anderson was in the role of Rick. It took the story in a different direction.

Okay... next. My wife and oldest daughter are now convinced I am autistic. Yep.... the bitches have diagnosed me. We discussed this at length last night. My oldest daughter says she can now accept me since I am obviously autistic. Prior to her diagnosing me as autistic I was simply evil in her mind. Now that I have a mental disorder she can accept me for what I am... a CIS-male autistic with some OCD. The idea that it is important for me to arrive on time, work on projects before they are actually due, and organize my work bench is simply an expression of my mental disorder. NORMAL people do not arrive on time or keep a clean work space. NORMAL people wait till the last minute to do things and they are disorganized.

These things are either characteristics of Whiteness or being neuro-atypical. They seem to have chosen the one that makes you oppressed and therefore good.

What we are NOT is empathetic. We do not do is simply act of our feelings. We have to think about our feeling before we act. Normal people simply act on their feelings. A normal person feels a thing and then does it. No thinking is involved. I was told by my wife that she looses patience with me when I am talking to our therapist about my feelings. My wife thinks it takes too long for me to describe how I feel. My daughter insists this is a sign of my autism. Indeed... the only people who take time to describe their feelings are autistic people. Aren't we special.

Sometimes I wonder if the Scientologists weren't after all onto something with their hatred of psychiatry.

100 pounds over weight, tattoos, a stupid scruffy beard and a voice like Gilbert Godfried.... they all get voices like Gilbert Gotfried. WTF. And my daughter is in love.... with a fat scruffy bearded Gilbert Godfired.

You should ask them to do one of his bits. Maybe his version of the aristocrats?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I keep feeling like I haven't read enough Kant to understand Spengler properly. I bow to your superior knowledge, having read him in German.

Oh no, I'm saying it was a long time ago and what little I remember is stored in a different, infrequently accessed, part of my brain. All I remember is considering Spengler prophetic at the time.

Of course, that was right around when Phil Collins was blabbering, my generation will put it right. We're not just making promises that we know we'll never keep. And we see how that bit of hubris turned out.

Kant was a fuzzy thinker, not to mention a real pissant who was very rarely stable. Waste of time to try and figure him out.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

So. I passed your test. Maybe I am just not gay enough to like Streisand, Full pass.

Touché, queer boi - but you surely practiced first.

Pop quiz -- make it through this one without bawling your faggy eyes out:

[fafnir]

I keep feeling like I haven't read enough Kant to understand Spengler properly. I bow to your superior knowledge, having read him in German.

Oh no, I'm saying it was a long time ago and what little I remember is stored in a different, infrequently accessed, part of my brain. All I remember is considering Spengler prophetic at the time.

Of course, that was right around when Phil Collins was blabbering, my generation will put it right. We're not just making promises that we know we'll never keep. And we see how that bit of hubris turned out.

Kant was a fuzzy thinker, not to mention a real pissant who was very rarely stable. Waste of time to try and figure him out.

For his own sake, I agree and wouldn't bother. I doubt I will agree with his philosophy. It's just that he is the origin of a lot of ideas, or at least it's his formulation of a lot of ideas, that then influence the next 200 years of European history. For example, you see his fingerprints all over early ideas of world government and the liberal world order. In a sense the EU, UN, etc.. come from him, and many of their founders knew this and thought this. You see him coming up again in the writings of the Frankfurt school. I'm not sure that one can understand 19th and 20th century liberal thought without understanding him. We will see. Definitely a hard slog. I may well get discouraged and not bother.

[fafnir]

For John D.

[John D]

So. I passed your test. Maybe I am just not gay enough to like Streisand, Full pass.

Touché, queer boi - but you surely practiced first.

Pop quiz -- make it through this one without bawling your faggy eyes out:

Okay... so that makes me cry.... but it does not mean that I want to stick my dick in a man's ass... no way... just fuck off!

[Service Dog]

Now I'll actually read the article.

The subject is interesting, but that specific article had less meat-on-it than I expected.

This struck me as inaccurate:

"New Yorkers hung on all through 2020, pulling together as instructed, sacrificing their livelihoods and spending their savings while the wealthy treated it like a carefree sabbatical."

With no-questions-asked unemployment benefits/ plus hundreds of extra federal dollars per-week/ plus a freeze on evictions... 2020 was a 'sabbatical' for anyone who took-advantage of the opportunity.

--

I came here at 19, after a year of college in the midwest, 30 years ago. That big state school offers nothing-more today-- than it did back-then. (and in Zoom-classroom form, it offers less now). But that school's monopoly on that-which-it-does-offer has diminished. One example: Who needs stacks-of-girls in dorms & strips-of-bars near campus, when you've got Tinder? On the other hand-- Tinder works waaay better in densely-populated Manhattan, than in Suburbia. Heck-- even Craigslist is a steady-stream of $100 used guitars in Manhattan. When I'm up visiting Woodstock, it's a dreary trickle.

Maybe the author of the link is dreadfully fucked by the current state of Manhattan, because he's an obedient herd animal. The opportunities available to those who mindlessly do what they're 'supposed to' are indeed in peril. They're taking-orders from leaders who aren't concerned or competent to ensure their welfare. But sheep and ostriches weren't the ones who made NYC great, before.

--
My opinion is solidifying as I type: NYC is still a fine playground for hapless youngsters to pinball-around/ enjoy some BLM riots/ get mugged & raped/ spend too much money on face-tattoos & taxi rides & ugly clothes.

The next stage-- when it's time to raise kids, start a proper business, buy a home, enjoy quiet peaceful evening walks & uninterrupted sleep... is when NYC lets you down. (Unless you're coming-from a 3rd-world-shithole/even worse than new-york-shitty.) But for Mighty Whitey & Respectable Blackie-- the city only becomes appealing-again if you've prospered-enough to pay for private security & live in a building with a doorman & security cameras, high above the noise & smells... mingling only with others of the same ilk.

[Service Dog]

DJ Matt C is doing a suspiciously-good job of spinning the gay hits.

That Barbra Streisand song does yank on my emotions. The gay choreographer from my former life-- used a snippet of that song as a re-occurring moment in his dances. The dancers would all wander onto the stage & pose for a moment like a family photo. The idea was-- year after year-- the people in the 'photo' would come & go, grow older, die. A solid idea. The choreographer died of overdose & self-neglect. I distanced-myself from the drag queens & faggots & sacksack female dancers... then they fully banished me when my ex dumped me.

---

John-- the abnormality your wife & daughter have identified-- is that you are male.

Like the Elephant Man and Rock Hudson and one of the Osundairo Brothers-- despite your gayness-- you are still a man.

They're marginalizing & oppressing your gender.

"Ree."

[Service Dog]

John-- conforms to the Norm.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Okay... so that makes me cry.... but it does not mean that I want to stick my dick in a man's ass... no way... just fuck off!

Knew it!! Now stop lying about how that surplus ordinance got stuck.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

On a serious note, Kim Potter found guilty of manslaughter, aka using justified force on a piece of shit serial criminal who was endangering the lives of Potter's fellow officers while violently resisting arrest.

But, she killed a negro.

[John D]

On a serious note, Kim Potter found guilty of manslaughter, aka using justified force on a piece of shit serial criminal who was endangering the lives of Potter's fellow officers while violently resisting arrest.

But, she killed a negro.

My daughter just informed me that all cops are bastards and she deserves to be sent to jail. Just making sure I understand what justice is. So happy that she can tell me about my ethics.

[Bhurzum]

Touché, queer boi - but you surely practiced first.

Pop quiz -- make it through this one without bawling your faggy eyes out:

ww.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-oSnGfRM4

Holy fuck, I might have a bit of the old gayness lurking in the darkest recesses of my psyche! I love (love!) Maria Callas - when I hear her sing, I get a mental flat-line and kinda zone out. Her voice takes me to a strange place I don't often visit...



Having said all that, the thought of another man touching me (in a sexual manner) brings up the bile from the back of my neck and hammers my "Fight" button. It's one of my oft-mentioned "fondly nurtured bigotries" that I'm slowly learning to discard. I think I'm still slightly homophobic, just not as blind or knee-jerk-y in my intolerance. Ok, "slightly" is probably not strong enough a word but it's a long road.

Anyway, speaking of gayness, watch this video. Seriously, as it unfolds, it gets stranger by the second and will make you start to question reality.

*** Warning *** - hideous gay/trans* paedophile(s), laughably bad "female" voice acting, sex-pest immigrants, terrible special effects, outraged "gammons" - it's got the fucking lot! This video is like a pilot episode of a new "League of gentlemen" show...only darker. Much, much darker!



If you only watch one shit-post video of mine, make it this one! Seriously, it's like a fucking train-wreck...