Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Because diversity doesn't mean forcing everyone from different backgrounds to conform to one group (ie: how you and others with your beliefs try to force white conservative Christian cis-male as default). It's celebrating and embracing the differences and similarities between groups and recognizing that they're all equally valid and important. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't comprehend even the very basics of what you're attempting to criticize.
Makes no difference to me. Musk already screwed himself over more times than he cares to count. Bastard can get wild stomped as well.
That is the effect of the "diversity" we are moving towards, just with different groups. Society is segmenting into factions, and the greater the segmentation, the higher the expectation that each individual conform to their faction.
You make shit up, dude. You really do.
Says the guy who wants to erase queer identities.
Last edited:
Can we lock them both in a room together and walk away? That sounds like everyone wins.
Sorry, Trump, Kanye and Musk in a room. To contain the problem
Anyone wanna talk about the terrorist attacks this weekend in North Carolina? 'cause it seems to have just been shrugged away. Several power substations were shot up, plunging over 40,000 people into darkness, including elderly while its below freezing, and people on medical support devices all to stop...a dragshow.
And apparently an ex-US army psychological operations officer and Jan 6th protestor is openly bragging she knows who did it, and when questioned by police said "God works in mysterious ways" and...and that seems to be enough for the local police.
And the Feds are now involved.
And apparently an ex-US army psychological operations officer and Jan 6th protestor is openly bragging she knows who did it, and when questioned by police said "God works in mysterious ways" and...and that seems to be enough for the local police.
And the Feds are now involved.
I tried to post about it earlier. Yeah, psyops military officer seems to have built a paramilitary organization in America.
And she's been cleared as a suspect by the county sheriff because he prayed with her.
Tweets at the time implied the sheriff of the county is MAGA.
They tend to be. There's an entire organized group of sheriffs who think that the Constitution gives them way more power and authority than they actually possess. Contain your surprise to discover how many of them would be sympathetic to fascism.
I would love to do that, but you are literally defending abusive things that have been done to real children. This is not abstract, it's very literal.
When I talk about a child becoming depressed and withdrawn after arbitrarily having all their toys taken away and your response is "well, that's just normal parenting", how exactly am I supposed to interpret that? Normal parenting is arbitrary? Normal parenting is punishing children who have done no harm to anyone because you simply don't like the person they are?
What alternate explanation am I meant to see here?
Nothing.
I realize now I might have oversimplified the example, but the consensus in this case doesn't need to be some society-wide unanimous, spontaneous, absolute uniform understanding, and indeed very few things ever are.
What does it mean for a behaviour to be "associated" with a sex?
Like, think about it for a second, if sex is a biological reality then how does it have associated behaviors?
There has never been any kind of societal consensus on the concept of gender. Until about a decade ago, it was basically unanimous in conservative circles that gender and sex were the same thing, and that any behavioral or psychological differences between men and women must be due to the influence of hormones or brain chemistry. That sociobiological view is less popular now that the sex/gender distinction has become a useful weapon against trans people, but the idea of innate behavioural differences between men and women remains extremely popular to this day. Somehow, civilization has not collapsed.
But the assumption that men and women have innate behavioral trends was always quite unstable because it's one of those prescriptive statements masquerading as a descriptive one. One symptom of this prescription was an entire medical industry aimed at "fixing" people who didn't conform to the supposed nature of their sex.
So close, and yet so far..
You're confusing utility and truth. The length of a meter is whatever distance anyone says it is. Meters do not exist in physical reality. They would not exist even if every single person in the world agreed on the length of a meter. You can't make something physically real by believing in it, or by teaching other people to believe in it, or by punishing and torturing those people if they refuse to believe it. Even if every single person on earth agrees on something, it does not become any more real.
The concept of a "woman" is no more real than a meter. Even if every person on earth believed that there was a clear and universal definition of a woman rooted in some clear binary element of sexual biology (which isn't how it works, attempts to define a woman biologically are typically completely incoherent) it would not bring this imaginary category of people into reality. Pointing to real human genitals and claiming this is proof that sex (unlike that bad, fake gender) is real and not a social construct is as useless as pointing to a wall and claiming it is proof that meters exist because that wall could be measured in them.
This is not to say that sex is a lie, or a deception, or that we need to take the red pill (estrogen, obviously) and break out of the sexual matrix. But imbuing sex with such intense and important meaning that you can no longer stand the idea that it is not absolutely, definitively real is a perfect example of the dangers of social learning. You have confused a fabricated, synthetic concept for the reality to which it gives meaning, you have turned prescription into description and, in a repetition of the cruelty of those who came before you, you have decided that anyone who doesn't play along is a threat who must be corrected.
God ain't answering their prayers.
FBI, can you crack down on those sheriffs & police by the way? I'm sure God will give them away out to actually think about what they done and rot in jail for eternity.
I fear this will become more common over time and is probably not far from how a lot of country that use to be well run fall into anarchy as a tiny minority start attacking vulnerable infrastructure and collapsing everything.
The really scary thing is I fear that they'll get away with it because they align polically with population and loser love to cut of their own nose to spite their face.
Society was always segmented into factions. There was just one on top and everyone had to pretend to act like them or they would lose jobs, have the police sent after them, lynched or have all their property stolen
When you say 'self-segegrating', you just mean that people get to have their own tradions, culture, family values and religious freedom. These were always there, they were just wall papered over so it didn't offend you
As long as groups/people don't break the law or discriminate, this is fine. Eg. As long as the Catholic church doesn't break laws or discriminate, it should be free to do as it wishes
Pretty much, and we've seen with Afghanistan that they can be incredibly effective and that the population isn't necesserily ready to fight for their rights even when they know full well how bad it'll get.
This is the clearest example, but it is truly amazing how your entire post is you turning against your own arguments from previous posts.
I would guess there are a small minority of people who fit this description, but for the most part, this is wrong. The concept of gender that we are discussing has only reached people's vocabulary at all in the last few decades. Nobody had an opinion on the difference between sex and gender because this usage of "gender" didn't exist. The term "gender role" was only coined in the 50s, and it wasn't coined by conservatives trying to defend the division of the sexes, but rather was coined by people like you to challenge that division, but also by specifically the guy who sex-changed a toddler, abused him and his twin, leading eventually to their tragic suicides later in life. The conception of gender we're discussing was invented by a psychotic pervert who debated in favor of "affectionate pedophilia".
Conservatives have never, as a whole, taken the stance that gender and sex are the same thing. Rather, the stance is that there's no such thing as gender.
You: social constructs don't actually exist except as a form of learned consensus.
Me: so without a consensus, they don't exist at all.
You: well, even with consensus, they aren't physically real.
Me (in this post right now): we've established that already. Now we're talking about existing as a social construct. We've agreed that meters and genders have no physical existence, we are talking about the rhetorical existence of a social construct that has lost it's consensus.