Netflix Adds 'Artistic Expression' Policy, Says It Will Not 'Censor Specific Artists'
"If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you," the company tells employees.
Hope they stick to their guns and that others follow suit - some reason to hope that Musk will oblige the "witch finders general" at Twitter to do likewise.
I thought you had posted it about a week ago though apparently not. But I'd watched the opening few minutes last Wednesday when it was first published, presumably after seeing it linked-to or discussed on Glinner's page/Substack. It's a bit too long to really justify the time (59 minutes) but she seems a smart cookie, someone who fortunately hadn't drunk the KoolAid before realizing the poisonous rot in the whole phenomenon.
Somewhat apropos of which, a shorter video - some 7 minutes - by UK MP Miriam Cates and, as a bonus, my comment thereon - which "Someone" has liked:
Although I think my comment highlights or underlines some "misperceptions" of yours about gender in this previous comment of yours:
I had a bit of a revelation. Trans persons think they are completely "normal". The fact that they cut off their breasts, or cocks, and take hormones, and cut up their genitals is just a normal human endeavor. So, they don't see their trans status as being a "treatment". They see their trans status as an exploration to find the truth. They really believe gender is a "expression" that is on a spectrum.
Kind of fascinating, in a sick sort of way, to reflect on the fact that, as you put it, many of the transloonie crowd think that "cutting up their genitals is just a normal human endeavor". Something of a fascinating story, if one has the stomach for it, on a transman who surgically acquired "her" own penis:
Now that you've paid to fix the cat of your daughter's transman "boyfriend" - if I remember correctly on both accounts, maybe you'll be interested in paying to fix the "boyfriend" "himself" ... ;-)
But an amusing bit in the NYTimes story where the transman in question - Ben - described how "her" penis was intially "too large" in diameter:
Ben hoped to get the implant — and a matching silicon testicle — sometime in early 2022, but before that he wanted to address two complications. First, his urine stream had grown weak, and he worried he might have a urethral stricture. Second, his penis was still very thick — far too thick to put his hand around.
I can sympathize ... ;-)
Though moot at what point "body modifications" cross the line from cosmetic surgery to pathology - apparently some 40,000 American "women" have "breast enhancement surgery" every year:
However, the crux of the matter, and a major part of the problem, is that you seem to reject the whole concept of gender itself. As I've argued in my YouTube comment, the whole concept of gender is pretty much incoherent twaddle - though not entirely so - with little to no science as any kind of leavening. However, there is some merit in the definition in the lead sentence of Wikipedia's article on the topic:
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them.
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of psychological traits that show differences in the population distributions by sex, all of which might reasonably contribute to that "range" - AKA, spectrum. And maybe some marginal value in thinking, as does Wikipedia, that our sexes contribute to that spectrum.
However, what is rank insanity is the apparent "thinking" of many of the transgendered that if they remove their gonads then they've changed both their genders and their sexes. They've certainly changed their genders, but all they've done as far as their sexes is to turn themselves into sexless eunuchs.
Sure would like to know whether your daughter's "boyfriend" (if that's the case) - and/or your daughter - realize that's the case, whether they have any clue at all what it means to have a sex, what traits one must possess to qualify as male or female.
Lsuoma wrote: ↑
It's the $$$$$. As soon as the bigwigs feel the pulse of a movement that lowers the income, they will spin faster than a ballerina image.
:-) Expect that's a big part of the reason for Netflix's response - keeping an eye out for the bottom line. Still, may be a harbinger of a change in the wind direction and its effects on various weather vanes ...
But reminds me of a scene in Network where an executive read the Riot Act to a journalist - "The world is a business, Mr Beale":
I thought you had posted it about a week ago though apparently not. But I'd watched the opening few minutes last Wednesday when it was first published, presumably after seeing it linked-to or discussed on Glinner's page/Substack. It's a bit too long to really justify the time (59 minutes) but she seems a smart cookie, someone who fortunately hadn't drunk the KoolAid before realizing the poisonous rot in the whole phenomenon.
Somewhat apropos of which, a shorter video - some 7 minutes - by UK MP Miriam Cates and, as a bonus, my comment thereon - which "Someone" has liked:
Wrong up front - erythrocytes are enucleate, and have no chromosomes.
Lsuoma wrote: ↑
It's the $$$$$. As soon as the bigwigs feel the pulse of a movement that lowers the income, they will spin faster than a ballerina image.
They're cheaper than the whore who blew Hugh Grant for $5.
I thought you had posted it about a week ago though apparently not. But I'd watched the opening few minutes last Wednesday when it was first published, presumably after seeing it linked-to or discussed on Glinner's page/Substack. It's a bit too long to really justify the time (59 minutes) but she seems a smart cookie, someone who fortunately hadn't drunk the KoolAid before realizing the poisonous rot in the whole phenomenon.
Somewhat apropos of which, a shorter video - some 7 minutes - by UK MP Miriam Cates and, as a bonus, my comment thereon - which "Someone" has liked:
Not exactly common knowledge, rather surprised when I found out about RBCs lacking a nucleus not that long ago. But I expect you were referring to this passage right out of the chute:
0:19 Humans, as all mammals, have either male or female sex chromosomes in every cell.
0:24 We are male or female: that is immutable and scientifically indisputable.
But while Cates makes a number of good points, I think she - and far too many others - haven't a clue exactly what are the biological definitions for the sexes. She's not exactly clear there herself, and doesn't seem to elaborate on those definitions elsewhere - her focus is on gender - but many people seem to think sex chromosomes are what determines what sex we are - maybe part of the "reason" why they think "sex is immutable", that "every cell has a sex". I was absolutely gobsmacked to see, of all groups, the Yale School of Medicine peddling that schlock:
If to be a member of the female sex - i.e., "the sex that bears young or that produces ova or eggs", according to their own Glossary - then it's rather unfathomable exactly how every cell will, in turn, be able to "bear young or produce ova". 🙄 "Idiotic" is being charitable, though I expect that's probably due to Fausto-Sterling having her dirty ideological mitts all over the latter publication.
But it's a "curious", though seriously problematic phenomenon that there are basically two sets of definitions for the sexes on the table, the risibly unscientifc "patchwork definition of the [so-called] social sciences" and those endorsed by mainstream biology:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Genspect, & Hilton] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
The biological definitions that are common in more credible dictionaries and encyclopedias; from the glossary of the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems.
"We all understand what masculine or feminine clothing look like." Apparently not you, babe.
Think it's a step in the right direction that she's differentiating between masculine and feminine clothing, stereotypes, and personalities on the one hand and, on the other, what it means to be male and female. Even if she doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable about the biological definitions.
As Justice Scalia put it:
Gender is to sex as masculine is to male, and as feminine is to female.
I was somewhat amused by a lefty woman who, in an email exchange when I'd posted that Scalia quote, had responded with, "Kinda funny that Scalia is making the most sense."
But, as I'd indicated in my comment, where Cates seems to go off the rails is in conflating gender and gender identity. The former has objective correlates - the aforementioned clothing, stereotypes, and personalities; even if they're badly stitched together.
But the latter, gender identity, is almost entirely subjective - incoherent claptrap; a "merging of science, magic, and religion":
Lsuoma wrote: ↑
It's the $$$$$. As soon as the bigwigs feel the pulse of a movement that lowers the income, they will spin faster than a ballerina image.
They're cheaper than the whore who blew Hugh Grant for $5.
How many diseases do they do this for? An increase in monkeypox cases is not completely unexpected so it is not surprising that research is done on it or that vaccines are being developed. It is closely related to smallpox and the cessation of smallpox vaccination has left people more susceptible to monkeypox. If things go as expected this won't be a pandemic.
Steersman wrote: ↑
But an amusing bit in the NYTimes story where the transman in question - Ben - described how "her" penis was intially "too large" in diameter:
Ben hoped to get the implant — and a matching silicon testicle — sometime in early 2022, but before that he wanted to address two complications. First, his urine stream had grown weak, and he worried he might have a urethral stricture. Second, his penis was still very thick — far too thick to put his hand around.
I can sympathize ...
That's quite an admission. But thank you for sharing your difficulties in jerking-off post-op trannymen.
(Not that anyone thought you had a firm grip on the tiller, in the first place.)
How many diseases do they do this for? An increase in monkeypox cases is not completely unexpected so it is not surprising that research is done on it or that vaccines are being developed. It is closely related to smallpox and the cessation of smallpox vaccination has left people more susceptible to monkeypox. If things go as expected this won't be a pandemic.
Steersman wrote: ↑
But while Cates makes a number of good points, I think she - and far too many others - haven't a clue exactly what are the biological definitions for the sexes. She's not exactly clear there herself, and doesn't seem to elaborate on those definitions elsewhere - her focus is on gender - but many people seem to think sex chromosomes are what determines what sex we are - maybe part of the "reason" why they think "sex is immutable", that "every cell has a sex".
Her performance there reminds me ineluctably (don't manage to get to use that word too often) of the celebs and luvvies who were set up by Chris Morris in Brass Eye. They have a piece of paper put in from of them and they're told to read it, and they do, either because they get paid, or because it gets them on the telly.
Lsuoma wrote: ↑
So, do any Brits believe that BoJo orchestrated the Uvalde shootings to draw attention from Sue Grey's report?
Absolutely. In front of the cameras he's all jovial confusion.... as he walks away it's like the end of The Usual Suspects he takes a step and his posture is looking better, another step and his suit looks like it actually fits him rather well, another step and he's running his perfectly manicured fingers through a head of neatly trimmed hair. He was behind all of it, he's always been behind it.... Diana in the tunnel in Paris, the novichok and polonium poisonings, the Beast of Bodmin and now the Uvalde shootings.
That was Boris. He knew what a threat Rebecca Watson was the the patriarchy. If she'd accepted that tea, she'd be just another one of his victims rather than the brave warrior for the unheard that we know and respect today.
Steersman wrote: ↑
But an amusing bit in the NYTimes story where the transman in question - Ben - described how "her" penis was intially "too large" in diameter:
Ben hoped to get the implant — and a matching silicon testicle — sometime in early 2022, but before that he wanted to address two complications. First, his urine stream had grown weak, and he worried he might have a urethral stricture. Second, his penis was still very thick — far too thick to put his hand around.
I can sympathize ...
That's quite an admission. But thank you for sharing your difficulties in jerking-off post-op trannymen.
:roll:
Service Dog wrote: ↑
(Not that anyone thought you had a firm grip on the tiller, in the first place.)
:-) :rimshot: Full marks for inventiveness ;)
Though a bit light in the loafers when it comes to evidence - as is your wont. Speaking of which, any plans afoot to acknowledge that you were blowing smoke out of your arse about AP and VAIDS? 🙄
:-) You'd fuck a rock pile if you thought there was a snake in it ... ;-)
Channeling your inner Bhurzo, I see...
:-) A rather uncommon colloquialism I don't get much of a opportunity to use ;-)
Only 10,000 hits on a Google search, though I often wonder about the precise sense of it.
But to be fair to Matt, it's been said that most men are in the same boat. You probably know of the study - mentioned in Pinker's Blank Slate if I'm not mistaken - that's most often done on campuses where a reasonably attractive man and woman will ask passerbys of the opposite sex whether they would be interested in having sex with them. Most men say, sure; most women say, nada.
Steersman wrote: ↑
the transman in question - Ben - described how "her" penis was intially "too large" in diameter
Transmen are not real men. Q.E.D.
Indubitably; quite agree; no dispute whatsoever. Why transman and ACLU "lawyer" Chase Strangio got "his" knickers in a twist when Bill Maher suggested "he" didn't qualify as a man:
As tweeter Watson pointed out in that thread, you have to first be male - produces sperm - to qualify as a gay man which Chase lacks the cojones to do.
Though my maybe obscure point there was to draw attention to the same incongruity that Gervais was talking about in the video you had posted earlier. The text from a National Review article:
Not all women, I mean the old-fashioned ones. The old-fashioned women, the ones with wombs. Those f***ng dinosaurs. I love the new women. They’re great, aren’t they? The new ones we’ve been seeing lately. The ones with beards and c***s. They’re as good as gold, I love them. And now the old-fashioned ones say, “Oh, they want to use our toilets.” “Why shouldn’t they use your toilets?” “For ladies!” “They are ladies — look at their pronouns! What about this person isn’t a lady?” “Well, his penis.” “Her penis, you f***ing bigot!” “What if he rapes me?” “What if she rapes you, you f***ing TERF whore?”
If we're talking - for some strange unfathomable reason ... - about (trans) women's penises then - ceteris paribus; all things being equal - we might "reasonably" talk about (cis) women's "penises" and (cis) men's (neo) vaginas: Bruce Jenner and his (neo) vagina, Ben and her (ersatz) penis, Zinnia Jones and "her" penis, Chase Strangio and "his" vagina.
All part of the transgender clusterfuck; what comes from sloppy, self-serving and contradictory definitions. Large part of the reason why I'm trying to go back to first principles to cut through that mephitic miasma; a "hill" I'm more or less "ready to die on" - not for nothing did Voltaire say, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms".
But a major part of the problem there is that most people don't realize that "male" and "female" are just names for categories and members of them, that they're abstractions, just mental perceptions and constructions, that they're not things in themselves. They're what are called "universals", although much of philosophy has been struggling with that concept for the last several thousand years:
In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things. For example, suppose there are two chairs in a room, each of which is green. These two chairs both share the quality of "chairness", as well as greenness or the quality of being green; in other words, they share a "universal". There are three major kinds of qualities or characteristics: types or kinds (e.g. mammal), properties (e.g. short, strong), and relations (e.g. father of, next to). These are all different types of universals.
But the properties that ALL male and ALL female members, of ALL sexually-reproducing species share is, by definition, "produces sperm" and "produces ova". If "we" can't agree on those biological definitions then I rather doubt that that transgender clusterfuck will have much if any satisfactory resolution.
Steersman wrote: ↑
But while Cates makes a number of good points, I think she - and far too many others - haven't a clue exactly what are the biological definitions for the sexes. She's not exactly clear there herself, and doesn't seem to elaborate on those definitions elsewhere - her focus is on gender - but many people seem to think sex chromosomes are what determines what sex we are - maybe part of the "reason" why they think "sex is immutable", that "every cell has a sex".
Her performance there reminds me ineluctably (don't manage to get to use that word too often) of the celebs and luvvies who were set up by Chris Morris in Brass Eye. They have a piece of paper put in from of them and they're told to read it, and they do, either because they get paid, or because it gets them on the telly.
Parenthetically (sadly, a word I don't get to use too often as it rolls so nicely off the tongue ... ;-) ), Brass Eye seems to be a British sitcom that I'm sad to have missed:
But you might be at least partly right about Cates just being a talking head with little to no understanding of what she's talking about. Though, to be fair, "gender" has to be one of the most "unintelligible propositions" to come down the pike in a long time:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Maybe that's a selling point in its favour; certainly has worked for Christianity.
I love the way she drops in the thing about germs, so you know she's a science nerd. There is another recent Tweet where she is complaining about a blackjack deals ignorance about statistics. I hadn't checked in on her in years.... it's generic SJW grifter, but with a weird streak of STEM humble bragging.
The skank is, as usual, talking out of her lumpy ass:
wiki wrote:During the early Middle Ages, Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636) mentioned "plague-bearing seeds" (pestifera semina) in his On the Nature of Things (c. AD 613).[9]: 20 Later in 1345, Tommaso del Garbo (c. 1305–1370) of Bologna, Italy mentioned Galen's "seeds of plague" in his work Commentaria non-parum utilia in libros Galeni (Helpful commentaries on the books of Galen).[9]: 214
The Italian scholar and physician Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 in his book De Contagione et Contagiosis Morbis that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seed-like entities (seminaria morbi) that transmit infection by direct or indirect contact, or even without contact over long distances.
Microorganisms are said to have been first directly observed in the 1670s by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, an early pioneer in microbiology, considered "the Father of Microbiology".
When Rome was struck by the bubonic plague in 1656, [Athanasius] Kircher investigated the blood of plague victims under the microscope. He noted the presence of "little worms" or "animalcules" in the blood and concluded that the disease was caused by microorganisms. He was the first to attribute infectious disease to a microscopic pathogen, inventing the germ theory of disease, which he outlined in his Scrutinium Physico-Medicum (Rome 1658).
Of particular note are her wide-of-the-mark but quite peevish shots at Rowling and Forstater, and for her profoundly unscientific endorsement of the Scientific American article peddling the sex-is-a-spectrum schlock:
But I can't think, offhand, anyone to whom Pope's quip might be more applicable - although I'll concede the field of contenders is well populated and quite diverse:
Some justification to argue that her biggest failing, at least to the extent evidenced by that post of hers, is being totally clueless about various foundational principles of science and biology, the science of taxonomy in particular:
In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics.
If every organism under the sun is put into the same category because they happen to share one or more traits - polythetic category - then the category is pretty much useless.
Which is pretty much exactly what Watson and that Scientific American article are doing with their sex-is-a-spectrum schlock; they've got diddly-squat that uniquely differentiates males from females - because they apparently don't want to "offend" anyone by depriving them of their membership cards in the category they want to belong to. "Cretins" is probably being charitable.
Steersman wrote: ↑
any plans afoot to acknowledge that you were blowing smoke out of your arse about AP and VAIDS? 🙄
SlymePit_ServiceDog3735_VAIDS_1B.jpg
About a week ago, I saw a new article which insisted that VAIDS is a form of AIDS.
This recent article reminded me of the AP's fact-check, which addressed only the same narrow premise: that VAIDS must be some form of AIDS/Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ HIV/ Realm: Riboviria, Kingdom: Pararnavirae, Phylum: Artverviricota, Class: Revtraviricetes, Order: Ortervirales, Family: Retroviridae, Subfamily: Orthoretrovirinae, Genus: Lentivirus.
AP insisted on addressing only that specific narrow claim-- and the low-credibility sources of that claim-- leaving unacknowledged and unrefuted the broader set of claims then-being-made by higher-credibility sources under the moniker "VAIDS".
The previous sentence is true, and it has been true all-along.
So heading out to make groceries today, within the confines of a state park I passed a shirtless guy ponying a quarterhorse from out the passenger window of his shitty old camper van. I turned around, watched him a while, then went back to the park kiosk. Told the woman in the kiosk (who was still wearing a fucking mask, fuck Californication) about this. She said, 'we know, and he talked to the ranger yesterday, the ranger is okay with it, and he'll be staying for a couple of days.'
So I left it at that, but I was fuming. Do stupid shit with your horse like that. Plus entire fucking state and entire fucking world falling apart at the seams.
When I come back, camper is parked on the turnout where all the transients park their campers. Dude is sitting on the tarmac of a small parking area across the road. Horse in hand. Horse is calm, head down, hind hoof cocked. Has a fly mask. Big yellow dog is laying flat out next to him. Dude, still shirtless, staring off into space, looks utterly despondent. So I go from wtf are you doing dude? to, fuck if I was bottomed out it would gut me to lose my dog and horse.
I had my own horses to feed, and groceries melting, and old dog in the kennel, and it was getting late. But I will go down tomorrow morning with some hay to offer, and see if I can suss out the backstory. Because of my liability insurance, I couldn't take in the horse unless I took ownership of it, but I know people who'd foster care it.
Dude is probably a ne'er-do-well, but I can kinda tell by body language when someone's good to animals. Fuck it I hate the Davos fuckers et al. who are running us all into the ground, breaking our livelihoods, bodies, and spirits.
Looks interesting, though I'll have to put it on the back burner for a bit.
But offhand, from the first few minutes, I agree with the first fellow that we have to agree on our definitions. But he may not realize that definitions aren't cast in concrete - Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z. We can - and do - change definitions all the time to reflect new evidence - used to be only 4 elements but now there are over a hundred.
And there's some justification to differentiate between biological traits related to reproduction - sex - and behavioural and psychological traits that generally correlate with sex - gender.
From a BMJ editorial:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
But something of an amusing story on the consequences of contradictory definitions:
Meaning is everything. The word “fanny” is a very good example of the linguistic chasm that exists somewhere in the middle of the North Atlantic. To the West it means buttocks, however to the East in Britain it is a euphemism for the female genitals.
It doesn't matter much whether we all drive on the left-hand side of the road or the right-hand side - but it matters a great deal whether we - in any one country - all agree to do one or the other; it can't be both.