Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Dwarvenhobble]

If Peterson and Trump is allowed to make millions off insulting people, so can everyone else

except this lot spent every waking minute seemingly angry and hyperfocussed on blaming 1 person for all their issues no mater how nonsensical and were being paid by others like them to keep doing it. At least Peterson and Trump had variety in who they insulted.

 

[thebobmaster]

1 - It's not Transgender it's nonbinary.
2 - It's something with literally 0 scientific evidence supporting it but has been glomming itself onto Transgenderism (which has scientific evidence supporting it).

Hey, I may or may not exist! Good to know.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes. You have. And you're still trying to overrule the study and the definitions provided by that study, its author, and the psychological journals with pop-sci editorials mischaracterizing it.

I have not misrepresented the data of the study.

Pop science editorials are really the best you've got? Next.

So you just ignore the studies in the article?

So what you actually mean is that another study was done using computer-generated data instead of human self-evaluation, and it went.... partway (though not fully) towards a similar-ish graph.

So everything on Dunning-Kruger post the study says it doesn't exist means basically nothing?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Thank Godnyiirndays are nimbered.

This is "covfefe" levels of stroking out in the middle of a sentence.

 

[Gergar12]

What a bunch of lying grifters.

Gen-Z for Change

Gen-Z for Change is a collective of Gen-Z activists that leverage the power of social media to drive progressive change.

genzforchange.org

And let's see who leads it...

Aidan Kohn-Murphy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An elitist from a Lvy league school who lied to us about Biden's campaign's progressiveness. Typical. Meanwhile.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/13/politics/willow-project-alaska-oil-biden-approval-climate/index.html

This is who really represents us not this sham person, and the billionaire bootlickers in DC.

Marianne Williamson 2024 | Official Presidential Campaign Website

Create a new beginning. Support profound, positive, peaceful change in America for generations to come. Marianne Williamson Democratic Candidate for President.

marianne2024.com

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hey, I may or may not exist! Good to know.

I still think you're not going to unseat Schrodinger's cat anytime soon.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Hey, I may or may not exist! Good to know.

I believe that's called 'Arguing from a Superposition'.

 

[Trunkage]

except this lot spent every waking minute seemingly angry and hyperfocussed on blaming 1 person for all their issues no mater how nonsensical and were being paid by others like them to keep doing it. At least Peterson and Trump had variety in who they insulted.

What on earth are you talking about?
How is blaming 10 people for all your problem better than blaming one? Like Trump blames whole country for his problem. He can't take responsibility for anything because he always blamed others for everything. Peterson blames anyone who disagrees with him and THEN calls them woke.

As stated, we are talking about people who respond to Peterson.... when Peterson goes around and insults people FIRST. These are random attacks, they are treating Peterson they exact way Peterson treats others

They are also responding to specific people so you might think they are 'hyperfoccused' but they are doing a huge variety of things. For example, one of the respondents is Robert Evans, who writes and produces history podcasts about dictators etc. He has targeted Reagan (for Contra), Mao, Stalin, a Warlord in China before the nationalist government took over 100 years ago, Papa Doc, Nxvium, Scientology, the doc who mutilated people as they were giving birth. They aren't 'hyperfocussed'. They are doing a variety of things, one of which is targetting Peterson AFTER Peterson targets minorities. Just because you only see them when they target Peterson, does not mean they aren't doing things with their lives elsewhere

 

[Trunkage]

1 - It's not Transgender it's nonbinary.
2 - It's something with literally 0 scientific evidence supporting it but has been glomming itself onto Transgenderism (which has scientific evidence supporting it).

Are you pretending that there is a genetic reason for women to wear dresses? Does having a vagina mean you HAVE to shave your legs? Does the fact that you can produce eggs means you can only have long hair?

Because these has far less evidence then Non-Binary existing.

 

[Asita]

I have not misrepresented the data of the study.

Yes, you have. This is not a negotiable point nor a matter of opinion. You are objectively wrong and doing nothing more than throwing a childish temper tantrum over it.

 

[Absent]

So you know when a certain side are trying to claim they're not planting certain ideas or trying to "groom" kids to adopt certain ideas?

I really don't get this use of the word grooming. Looks completely empty and purely rhetorical.

As I understand grooming, it's what happens in Molière's School For Wives. A man uses his seniority to educate a very young girl in order to make her his very obedient wife later.

Societies always educate children in order to make them compatible citizens. They are being taught values, by the parents (is it grooming), by schools (is it grooming), by the medias (is it grooming) and by their peers. Churches, fairy tales, fictions, parents, teachers, all teach them to, say, be polite, be helpful, and (let's be generous ourselves I know it's far from always the case) be generous, don't be racist, don't pull the other kids' hairs, don't kick dogs, don't litter, don't judge people on appearances, don't follow strangers, don't be an absolute twat. All the stories have meanies (look how mean they are) and nice people (look how nice). Models, counter-models. Is it grooming ?

Now, don't be homophobic, don't be transphobic, are being added to don't be racist. It switches from "education" to "grooming" because of that ?

If anything, conservatives were even more on education than progressives ("wife, fetch me my respect-inducing belt"). So it's just the old "theirs is propaganda, ours is education" with a new fashionable word ? A moral panic using new moral panicky words in order to denounce the fact that children are taught to be polite and accepting in front of sexual minority just as well as in front of ethnic minorities ?

Does it even feel self-serious to use that word ?

 

[Buyetyen]

So you just ignore the studies in the article?

You have a habit of citing studies that prove you wrong.

 

[Ag3ma]

I really don't get this use of the word grooming. Looks completely empty and purely rhetorical.

Yes, it's very rhetorical. There's "teaching", but if someone doesn't like what people are being taught, it gets called "indoctrination" or even "brainwashing". If they want to add in additional implications of sexual abuse, then they call it "grooming". And thus the particularly malevolent use with respect to transgenderism or homosexuality, because it taps into the grotesque prejudice that they promote sexual abuse, especially of minors.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What on earth are you talking about?
How is blaming 10 people for all your problem better than blaming one? Like Trump blames whole country for his problem. He can't take responsibility for anything because he always blamed others for everything. Peterson blames anyone who disagrees with him and THEN calls them woke.

As stated, we are talking about people who respond to Peterson.... when Peterson goes around and insults people FIRST. These are random attacks, they are treating Peterson they exact way Peterson treats others

They are also responding to specific people so you might think they are 'hyperfoccused' but they are doing a huge variety of things. For example, one of the respondents is Robert Evans, who writes and produces history podcasts about dictators etc. He has targeted Reagan (for Contra), Mao, Stalin, a Warlord in China before the nationalist government took over 100 years ago, Papa Doc, Nxvium, Scientology, the doc who mutilated people as they were giving birth. They aren't 'hyperfocussed'. They are doing a variety of things, one of which is targetting Peterson AFTER Peterson targets minorities. Just because you only see them when they target Peterson, does not mean they aren't doing things with their lives elsewhere

Except generally they don't make arguments or try to argue points they go for pure ad hominem constantly.

Also yes I would use the term hyper focussed because it is weird to an obsessive degree, which is funny when I've been accused of similar even when I pointed out the majority of my posts didn't mention said people lol.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Are you pretending that there is a genetic reason for women to wear dresses? Does having a vagina mean you HAVE to shave your legs? Does the fact that you can produce eggs means you can only have long hair?

Because these has far less evidence then Non-Binary existing.

On dresses, no, nor on the other stuff. HOWEVER.


There actually is a measurable neurological component to being male or female and you know the interesting part based on Dr Verma's research (said research is in the above documentary). Similar tests have been done on Trans people and their brain structures are far close to the opposite sex than their birth sex.

So yes measurable provable science shows actual trans people being trans is based on more than actual mere feelings. Which before we get into the arguments of validating feelings etc etc it's a far better set of evidence and position to take than arguing feelings are what should count as we have plenty of drugs to change peoples feelings, we don't have drugs capable of literally re-wiring a human brain to that extent.

So to summarise, Trans = measurable, testable, reproduceable, defined set of criteria.
Non binary = wishy washy bullshit phrase with no evidence supporting it as a thing beyond people "Feeling" it's true and no actual specific set of definition to it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

So you know when a certain side are trying to claim they're not planting certain ideas or trying to "groom" kids to adopt certain ideas?

No, I don't. I know of a certain side that wants to teach children that being gay, trans, and non-binary is a thing some people are and that there's nothing wrong with that. Just like that "incriminating" clip said. It's that other certain side that equates this to "planting ideas", sexual deviancy, and grooming.

Was Sesame Street also "planting ideas" when teaching kids about math and literacy?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I really don't get this use of the word grooming. Looks completely empty and purely rhetorical.

As I understand grooming, it's what happens in Molière's School For Wives. A man uses his seniority to educate a very young girl in order to make her his very obedient wife later.

Societies always educate children in order to make them compatible citizens. They are being taught values, by the parents (is it grooming), by schools (is it grooming), by the medias (is it grooming) and by their peers. Churches, fairy tales, fictions, parents, teachers, all teach them to, say, be polite, be helpful, and (let's be generous ourselves I know it's far from always the case) be generous, don't be racist, don't pull the other kids' hairs, don't kick dogs, don't litter, don't judge people on appearances, don't follow strangers, don't be an absolute twat. All the stories have meanies (look how mean they are) and nice people (look how nice). Models, counter-models. Is it grooming ?

Now, don't be homophobic, don't be transphobic, are being added to don't be racist. It switches from "education" to "grooming" because of that ?

If anything, conservatives were even more on education than progressives ("wife, fetch me my respect-inducing belt"). So it's just the old "theirs is propaganda, ours is education" with a new fashionable word ? A moral panic using new moral panicky words in order to denounce the fact that children are taught to be polite and accepting in front of sexual minority just as well as in front of ethnic minorities ?

Does it even feel self-serious to use that word ?

Time for an answer


The issue being:

1) Non-binary as a concept on so many levels can actually be harmful, including harmful to trans people due to it creating a position where it's not actually affirming their new gender identity but creating an undefined 3rd position.

2) There's a difference between don't be Transphobic / homophobic and making it out to be something special (which is therefore not normalising it). Certain topics especially with young children can be....... not the best thing to suddenly have a character on about especially kids at certain ages who like to copy said characters to an extent. More concerning still is said idea and said copying in the present age where it's being deemed bigoted to dare ask question which could be seen as getting in the way of "progress" for certain causes.

Yes, it's very rhetorical. There's "teaching", but if someone doesn't like what people are being taught, it gets called "indoctrination" or even "brainwashing". If they want to add in additional implications of sexual abuse, then they call it "grooming". And thus the particularly malevolent use with respect to transgenderism or homosexuality, because it taps into the grotesque prejudice that they promote sexual abuse, especially of minors.

The issue being the kind of worryingly high (approaching priest hood levels of scandal) of activists being unmasked and things like this being found out.

This gay activist couple allegedly raped the boys they adopted from a Christian special-needs agency, pimped them out, and boasted about it on social media

I'm going to start this story off with a disclaimer: This is one of the most vile things I have ever had to report.

notthebee.com

Or you know the whole "We're coming for your children" Choir where it turned out like 3-5 of them were registered sex offenders.

Or do we need to go onto Jessica Yaniv or what was it Delson or something the 7 year old drag queen whom it's reported was doing lets say no exactly child safe shows at some gay night clubs.

Now to be clear the issue at hand isn't just a minority of awful people are doing not great to absolutely appalling things with kids, the issue at hand is people outright refusing to acknowledge this stuff and that maybe it's a problem and instead just pushing that it's all right wing homophobia / Transphobia, as though somehow that's to blame for the abuse happening or something or that the abuse should be overlooked because "It might make certain people look bad and give ammo to the enemy". Because no it wouldn't it would actually show action being taken and deny those lines to attack but instead we're having this stupid dance about how it's not that bad and how the real issue isn't the abuse but people being mean online.

 

[SilentPony]

No, I don't. I know of a certain side that wants to teach children that being gay, trans, and non-binary is a thing some people are and that there's nothing wrong with that. Just like that "incriminating" clip said. It's that other certain side that equates this to "planting ideas", sexual deviancy, and grooming.

Was Sesame Street also "planting ideas" when teaching kids about math and literacy?

Yes. Conservatives believe that Sesame Street planted ideas in kids heads. Ideas like being gay is okay, being a boy who shows emotions is okay, being black is okay, being a woman who likes science is okay, having two moms or two dads is okay, being a Jew is okay. Things conservatives openly believe are not okay.
Sesame Street, Mr. Rodgers, Barney, Blue's Clues, Dora the Explorer, Teletubbies. All these seemingly harmless shows about getting kids to laugh, learn basic math and reading skills, and begin to understand multiculturalism are all Marxist George Soros funded 5G brain-wave indoctrination camps where boys learn to hate dicks unless its in their mouths, and girls learn reading and to be themselves!

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yes. Conservatives believe that Sesame Street planted ideas in kids heads. Ideas like being gay is okay, being a boy who shows emotions is okay, being black is okay, being a woman who likes science is okay, having two moms or two dads is okay, being a Jew is okay. Things conservatives openly believe are not okay.
Sesame Street, Mr. Rodgers, Barney, Blue's Clues, Dora the Explorer, Teletubbies. All these seemingly harmless shows about getting kids to laugh, learn basic math and reading skills, and begin to understand multiculturalism are all Marxist George Soros funded 5G brain-wave indoctrination camps where boys learn to hate dicks unless its in their mouths, and girls learn reading and to be themselves!

Yeah, but a gay guy once did a sexual assault, and a drag queen also did a bad thing once, so see, conservatives are actually right in thinking kids are being indoctrinated.

Also, we should probably stop women from being in childrens media too, because young impressionable boys might see them and want to copy them, put on their mom's dress, and then their brains will overload due to sexual confusion. And next thing you know they're turning tricks for crack on the street.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yeah, but a gay guy once did a sexual assault, and a drag queen also did a bad thing once, so see, conservatives are actually right in thinking kids are being indoctrinated.

Also, we should probably stop women from being in childrens media too, because young impressionable boys might see them and want to copy them, put on their mom's dress, and then their brains will overload due to sexual confusion. And next thing you know they're turning tricks for crack on the street.

But every fucking time some-one bring up how you know something may be an issue and maybe a bit more caution like I don't know actually checking the people being hired to read to kids aren't convicted sex offenders then people yell that said people are homophobic because apparently being a drag queen can't possibly mean they are potentially criminals too like any normal person. No all drag queens absolute perfect people who couldn't possibly ever be criminals so no need to check like you would do for any normal person for almost anything else.