I mean, that's the exact path Trump used to get to the White House
Even if the media stopped, it still probably wouldn't stop the antics. Its like the class clown. You enjoy their antics.... but then realise that you are being manipulated
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Even if the media stopped, it still probably wouldn't stop the antics. Its like the class clown. You enjoy their antics.... but then realise that you are being manipulated
I don't have any tattoos and London is an ocean away, but I'm sincerely tempted to go there just to shake some hands.
Oh right, yeah, I sorta remember that now you mention it. I guess with everything else to do with that election relatively normal things like that got forgotten.
Also 70,000 votes across like 12 states where he did get on the ballot is pretty minimal. I don't think any of them got him higher then 4th highest in a particular state and did worse then the Green party candidate overall (Yes, the US has a green party, just not one anyone really cares about).
Last edited:
Of all the people here, you are among those I trust the least to say what you actually think. Granted, you will give opinions that I have no reason to believe are not true representations of your own beliefs, but you will never provide the reasoning which might allow anyone else to ever engage with those opinions. Thus, your disagreement is not honest, because you seem to be unwilling to disclose the most important part of any argument, which is the reasoning behind it.
I don't have any real investment in what you believe is or isn't morally wrong. That has no meaning or relevance to me (save that it's emotionally very uncomfortable to watch someone defend child-abuse). I care about why you believe that. That is how your opinions become comprehensible to others, and to me, and if you're not willing to show the reasoning behind these things then I don't think you really have the license to complain about being misrepresented or portrayed as dishonest, because noone can possibly know what you actually mean. In fact, that seems like it might be the point.
Remember when you said "gender is a social construct" and I said that I don't think you know what that means..
Let's say you're a letting agent and you need to quickly explain a client how big the rooms in a flat are. How would you explain that to them in terms they can understand?
I'm going to guess that your answer would be to use a standard unit of length which you both understand, like "meters" or "feet". Those units are social constructs. They don't actually exist except as a form of learned consensus. However, everything physical that exists in reality can still be measured in those units.
The problem with social constructs is not that they are are fake or imaginary, because they aren't. Where social constructs become a problem is when they lead to internalized biases or assumptions about reality that are incorrect. So yes, it would be wrong to assume that a little boy who likes wieners is gay, but not because that boy is incapable of being gay or being aware that he is gay, not because being gay is meaningless or because sexual orientation as a concept is bad for some reason. It's wrong because that's an oversimplified and reductive view of sexuality that will likely lead to incorrect conclusions.
Sexual orientation is a "social construct", but it is a social construct because there is a shared, consensus-based understanding of what it means. You know what it means, which is why you used the example you did. You can't pretend its meaningless when you know the meaning.
Why? It's true.
Your thoughts do make you different from other people. We all have unique minds and unique thoughts, which is why we need "social constructs" in order to be intelligible to one another. There's very little difference between deciding that a person is male because they have a dick and deciding that a person is gay because they like dicks. Both are capable of fostering division, or leading to incorrect conclusions.
The mistake here, and the thing that should be interrogated, is why you have assumed that being unlike other people is bad. Because that is a hell of a revealing assumption.
I show the reasoning behind my arguments constantly. You personally decide that my stated reasoning is dishonest. That's not my fault. Trust what I actually say for 6 seconds and you'll be able to understand my reasoning just fine. Look at the rest of this post, it's about to explain a ton of reasoning, just read it without thinking "he wants to abuse children" the whole time and you'll understand.
Yes, I understand what a social construct it, and you do a good job describing the concept. But then you don't follow that idea to the logical conclusions that follow. If we take the premise "a social construct only exists as a form of learned consensus" (which I believe we agree is the case), what happens to a social construct if the consensus breaks? It no longer exists in any sense. Right? If you have a construct that only exists as a learned consensus, and then that consensus goes away, the construct goes with it. We can measure things in terms of meters in a consistent and communicable way all and only because we have a socially agreed upon definition of the length of a meter. If people stop adhering to the agreed upon definition of a meter, or even further don't apply a consistent definition even in just their own measurements, meters cease to exist in any meaningful way at all. You can no longer measure with them, as measurement requires a standardized unit.
So, gender is a social construct. It does not exist except as a form of learned consensus, the consensus here traditionally being which behaviors are associated with the sexes. And to your point, "the problem is when they lead to internalized biases or assumptions about reality that are incorrect." There is, undoubtedly, a lot packed into stereotypical gender roles that fits that category of problem, I think we agree there too. But what happens when you break the consensus on gender? It ceases to be real in any meaningful sense. If there is no consensus on what gender means, there is no such thing as gender. We could reestablish a new consensus, but first we would have to have a definition to agree on.
Hence, the question: "What is a woman?"
Because right now, the trans-positive definition of woman is "anyone who says that they are", which is akin to defining a meter as "whatever distance anyone says it is". In which case, there is no such thing as gender.
Allow me to be more specific: different in kind. There are all sorts of oranges in the world: big ones, small ones, ripe ones, rotten ones, so on so forth. An orange can certainly be meaningfully different from another orange. An orange is never an apple, an orange is always meaningfully different from an apple. Oranges are different in kind from apples.
Any two given people are going to be the same or different in a variety of ways, the problem is treating people as different in kind. I do not believe we should be teaching children to divide people into different-in-kind classes based on any social construct: race, gender, etc.
Also, how dare you accuse someone of dishonesty and type something like this.
It's as if I said that it's bad to teach children that people should be categorized by race, and you responded "well why do you think it's bad to be a different race?" You know that's not what I think, get that crap out of here.
It's not that you're consciously thinking, "I want to abuse children." It's that the outcomes you desire can only be achieved through abuse. You will be happy with nothing less than the erasure of trans identities because you think that's in people's best interest. Unfortunately, the data is not on your side. Declaring something a social construct does not make it less real. Money is a social construct and there's tons of research on the way it effects us physically and mentally.
In other words, people don't need your permission to self-determine.
The concept of money is taught to people and agreed upon to give it effect. A paper dollar, or even more amazingly tapping a piece of plastic against a computer, can be traded for the things you want most because society has agreed upon it.
Why would we agree upon a conception of gender that leads to drugging children and sterilizing people? I know your response is "who cares if you agree to people being who they want to be", but that's not it. It's not about whether or not people need permission to self-determine. It's that people are self-determining specifically to fit into a social fabric that does not need to exist in the way that it does.
It's like the kind of children's toy where different shaped blocks are made to slot neatly into the same shaped hole. People who might not match any of the standard shapes are rearranging themselves so that they can fit into the slots society has open. The problem isn't them, the problem is the slots that only accommodate people in specific ways. Society doesn't need to be a puzzle to fit into, we can have a big opening that fits any shape you like. We have these overly specific ideas of how men or women are supposed to fit into society, and you would encourage people to overwrite the natural functions of their bodies to try and meet those criteria than just challenge the often arbitrary criteria set by society.
Why? Because it's inconvenient for you? Also, fuck off with drugging children bullshit. The overwhelming majority of transition for youth is social. The science behind the rest of it has been explained to you. You just don't care.
Which falls apart once you realize that people are capable of creating their own niches within society and that societies are themselves malleable enough to accommodate sexual minorities.
Again the root problem is that you do not recognize trans identities as being real and I wish you'd just fucking own it. The rest is all so much sophistry.
If this were true, there'd be no such thing as transitioning. The very idea of transition to switching from one unmalleable category to another.
I notice you're still avoiding the point: you don't think trans identities are real. Of course, you're also not disputing that point so shall I take that as agreement?
"The very idea of transitioning" as understood and expressed by someone with no personal experience, and also no interest in listening to people who do have that.
Ye/Kanye is not the problem, Nick Fuentes is. It seems to me that every right-winger is getting amplified while even the smartest left-wingers your Vaushes, Ana Kasparian, Hasan, Breadtubers, etc are still on the fringes. The tech leaders or some of them want a revolt against democracy to stop people from taxing them. Thiel, the newly elected Senator in Ohio. I still am guessing that DeSantis is like Sebastian Kurz, but I could be wrong and the whole republican party could be edging towards fascism because they are afraid of a blue wave.
I'm not going to dispute that. I would not say it like that, as the language requires more care to get the correct point across.
I think all identity groups are fiction, and can be changed or even dismissed as we see fit.
What point is there to get across? You believe that trans identities should be erased for your convenience. Just fucking own it and quit pretending this is out of some great compassion you have for your fellow human beings when the reality is you just want a world where no one is born different. Diversity's a gift. If you don't want it, fine, but quit trying to take it away from the rest of us.
Meanwhile, in the world of unironic domestic terrorism.
EDIT: News update, the lady who may be behind this and for sure is stirring the pot was a literal psyops officer.
You forget a key fact in this case though
They're white. Therefore it's not terrorism! This is just boys being boys.