Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Ag3ma]

You can clearly see that this is a case of social contagion promulgated by both peers and also by teachers who have been indoctrinated by gender activism to accept any child’s assumed identity.

Ah-huh.

Warning signs for this article are the absurdly overdramatic terms like "social contagion" and "indoctrination" when much more moderate ones or reasonable explanations would suffice.

From my position, I don't think an assumption of school / teacher uncertainty about gender is compelling. The school / teacher has a duty of care for the pupil: in many cases, the pupil may be vulnerable, and for the school / teacher to publicly undermine them further, potentially hand ammunition to fellow pupils that want to bully them, is a legitimate concern.

Secondly, the article recognises the idea that developing children are finding their way in the world and discovering their identity, involving experimentation, fantasies, and so on. Most of this is basically harmless and they'll probably grow out of it. And yes, they're very likely picking some of it up from peers online or in person - monkey see monkey do, after all.

However, then linking this sort of thing to transexualism is a huge leap that requires a lot more careful justification than the author provides. We can certainly believe in this period of life that children may question their gender, sexuality etc. and there's probably a plenty of evidence to support that. It doesn't mean that a few online chat boards are going to create a legion of transexual adults.

But then, I don't think the author is actually very interested in careful justification so much as expressing some highly specious prejudices with as much of a veneer as reasonableness as possible.

 

[Thaluikhain]

monkey see monkey do

Pun intended?

But yeah, rather dubious about the article. One also notes that the last time this hit the headlines (ok, the last time I personally remember it doing so, which was not that long ago, but there might have been one in the meantime) it was totally made up. Schools weren't issuing litter boxes to furry students.

 

[Ag3ma]

Pun intended?

But yeah, rather dubious about the article. One also notes that the last time this hit the headlines (ok, the last time I personally remember it doing so, which was not that long ago, but there might have been one in the meantime) it was totally made up. Schools weren't issuing litter boxes to furry students.

The Telegraph as a source isn't exactly the finest (although the author calls it the Torygraph, implying they don't respect it). There could be a grand total of 6 school furries in the whole UK and the Telegraph would be screaming about a tsunami of decadent schoolkids indicating imminent societal collapse. I'm also a little skeptical of the opining of random teachers. Without knowing reliability and potential context, it's just so many words.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Pun intended?

But yeah, rather dubious about the article. One also notes that the last time this hit the headlines (ok, the last time I personally remember it doing so, which was not that long ago, but there might have been one in the meantime) it was totally made up. Schools weren't issuing litter boxes to furry students.

The litterbox thing was a meme from one of the stupid chan sites that made it in front of an old, out-of-touch conservative who freaked out about "kids these days".

 

[Trunkage]

The litterbox thing was a meme from one of the stupid chan sites that made it in front of an old, out-of-touch conservative who freaked out about "kids these days".

I.e. it's trolling

Also, I could imagine some actual trolls doing this

 

[Phoenixmgs]

None of your number go against the number shown by ag3ma, nor do they actually support your point. Also you're ignoring human, we displace animal and replace them with many more human, we then make ultra efficient agriculture to raise far more animal on top of that. We're more efficient at agriculture than nature because we use added chemical fertilizer and breed plant specialize in producing as much as possible while protecting them from disease and aggressively harvest plant at the best time. That increase in available food has to go somewhere, we don't juts burn it for shit and giggle, its used to feed human and livestock. Since the amount of agricultural product available far exceed what is produced naturally, then its not hard to understand that the number of living organism sustained by this exceed what existed naturally, and since we literally raise billions of cows/porc, its pretty obvious that there's far more in existence due to modern agriculture than nature.

My point is that cows emitting 15% of total methane is a pretty meaningless number without the proper context (which we still don't have). Ag3ma's links were about biomass of animals, which results in very crude estimations of methane emissions because the mass of an animal isn't proportional to methane emissions. Termites for example emit 5% of global methane while humans don't emit very much methane at all. We don't even have solid estimations of say the human population in the Americas before the New World was "discovered".

I don't think the problem is your "logical sense". The problem is that you started from the assumption that animal-based methane production hasn't gone up since prehistory, and you're reluctant to let that assumption go to the point you're trying to maths your way out of it without a solid factual base.

Incidentally, you may find this rather more reliable than a random Reddit user to estimate elephant methane production:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731119003161

Admittedly, only one elephant measured to go into their data set, but it does demonstrate a reasonable relationship between body weight and methane emissions, with some species notably well below (e.g. horses, rabbits, kangaroos).



Why? You demanded science and you got it. That's the thing with science: sometimes it tells us our assumptions were wrong.

See also: https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline. It's not peer-reviewed, but it's got good bona fides and is relatively well regarded. Again, it makes very clear just how huge the amount of mammalian livestock is today compared to prehistoric amounts of mammals.

I don't have an assumption that it hasn't went up, just an assumption that it hasn't gone up so much that it's a major issue. With just elephants in Africa and buffaloes in America, I got to 250 million cows of methane basically. I'm not saying it's obvious that I can get that number up to a billion, but your article was estimating it at 3 times more. I think it's very believable when counting Asian elephants and the wild ruminants in the rest of the world (because we only have a count of American buffalo), you could get up to at least 500 million cows worth of methane without much trouble (and thus at worst it would be double the methane). Yeah, the wild mammal decline is part of the reason it doesn't make logical sense why methane emissions would be a lot higher. Sure, I believe there's more cows (wild or not) today than ever before but we also now don't have at least 200 million cows worth of methane production from elephants that we used to have as well. And there were still tons of wild cows beforehand (I very much doubt as much as we have now) but America is has ~twice as many cows today than there were wild buffalo for example. If that holds true for the world number at 1 billion cows, I don't see it being way off that there was say 500 million wild ruminants across the world before humans started messing around. Add that to the at least 200 million cows methane production of African elephants and you're at 700 million cows worth of methane and not counting Asian elephants at all. Also, the reddit thread I linked to, the person did cite 3 sources for that.

 

[Hawki]

The diversity trap

If anyone reading this ever bought shares in the diversity racket, then I would suggest you start dumping them now. Not that I would blame you for having bought them in the first place. ‘Diversity’ has been the great mantra of our age. Like ‘equality’, it is one of those words set up to be

www.spectator.co.uk

I've always found it baffling why so many people on the left automatically assume "minority = progressive/leftist." Islam in particular, which as a whole, is far more conservative than Christianity, yet so many on the left assume it's a natural ally.

Anyway, like I said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Gergar12]

The Titanic Sub Passengers Probably Died Days Ago

Recovered debris indicates a ‘catastrophic implosion’ that likely happened just after Titan’s voyage began.

nymag.com

I was going to meme on this, but then I realized one of the people was a SETI Institute trustee, I wish it was a billionaire I didn't like.

Titan submersible implosion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Suleman Dawood (19), the son of Shahzada Dawood, who was a student at the University of Strathclyde.[119][44] According to his aunt Azmeh Dawood, Suleman was terrified of going on the trip, but wanted to please his father

Of course.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The diversity trap

If anyone reading this ever bought shares in the diversity racket, then I would suggest you start dumping them now. Not that I would blame you for having bought them in the first place. ‘Diversity’ has been the great mantra of our age. Like ‘equality’, it is one of those words set up to be

www.spectator.co.uk

I've always found it baffling why so many people on the left automatically assume "minority = progressive/leftist." Islam in particular, which as a whole, is far more conservative than Christianity, yet so many on the left assume it's a natural ally.

Anyway, like I said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Letting people emigrate and, you know, not treating other human beings like an existential threat because of their religion doesn't mean we have to agree on everything.

Like, what was the better option, demonizing all Muslims? Including the gay ones? The author of that article would certainly prefer that option. Of course, the author of that article is a gay man who defends conversion therapy, so I mostly think he's just profoundly selfish

 

[Hawki]

Letting people emigrate and, you know, not treating other human beings like an existential threat because of their religion doesn't mean we have to agree on everything.

Like, what was the better option, demonizing all Muslims? Including the gay ones?

I love how your entire paradigm is "either/or." Must make life simple.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I love how your entire paradigm is "either/or." Must make life simple.

I mean "let them in or don't" *is* kinda binary. Any sort of political litmus test is a no-go because A) it's an obvious bias that either party won't agree to and B) it's easy to lie

 

[Hawki]

I mean "let them in or don't" *is* kinda binary. Any sort of political litmus test is a no-go because A) it's an obvious bias that either party won't agree to and B) it's easy to lie

The article makes no mention of any such issue - you've jumped topic. Nor does it mention political parties at all. And in immigration, there's middle ground between "entry" and "no entry."

But none of that is actually relevant to the issue at hand.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The article makes no mention of any such issue - you've jumped topic. Nor does it mention political parties at all. And in immigration, there's middle ground between "entry" and "no entry."

And what would that be? Serious question

The article was boilerplate "I warned you! Pendulums!", just with a Muslim focus instead of just the same shit the GOP pulls constantly

 

[Hawki]

And what would that be? Serious question

That it's silly to assume that minorities will automatically lean left, that identity politics is toxic, that the left has a tendency to eat itself, and that it's silly to assume that Muslims will follow small L liberal causes when on average, they (and most religious communities) tend to be small C conservative. I saw this same scenario be reported years ago in the Guardian where Muslims were protesting LGBT classes, and people were divided as to whether they should side with the school to protest against homophobia, or side with the Muslims to prevent racism (Islam not being a race notwithstanding). It's nonsense that comes from wokeness over and over.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Of course, the author of that article is a gay man who defends conversion therapy, so I mostly think he's just profoundly selfish

He also spouts white replacement bullshit. Nobody should waste their breath or their braincells on scum like Douglas Murray.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

That it's silly to assume that minorities will automatically lean left, that identity politics is toxic, that the left has a tendency to eat itself, and that it's silly to assume that Muslims will follow small L liberal causes when on average, they (and most religious communities) tend to be small C conservative. I saw this same scenario be reported years ago in the Guardian where Muslims were protesting LGBT classes, and people were divided as to whether they should side with the school to protest against homophobia, or side with the Muslims to prevent racism (Islam not being a race notwithstanding). It's nonsense that comes from wokeness over and over.

Only idiots assume political stances of minorities, what a dumb straw man to answer a completely different unasked question, Jfc. What is this weird poisonous presumption that "help" must only be provided if victims pass some vague western political alignment test? Say you never talked to any charity workers without saying you never talked to any charity workers. Typical conservative projection, as always. And is notably interesting none of that answered TheMsSGXs question either.

 

[Hawki]

Only idiots assume political stances of minorities,

I agree that it's a dumb stance to take, that's why it's so disheartening when people make it.

What is this weird poisonous presumption that "help" must only be provided if victims pass some vague western political alignment test?

Who's making that assumption?

Say you never talked to any charity workers without saying you never talked to any charity workers.

I've worked in five charities over the course of my life, and regularly interact with charity workers inside the library system, actually.

Typical conservative projection, as always.

First, it's a projection that's more common on the left than right, and secondly, I actually vote for left-wing parties (greens followed by labor).

And is notably interesting none of that answered TheMsSGXs question either.

He asked what the point of the article was, I answered.

 

[Casual Shinji]

He asked what the point of the article was, I answered.

The only point of the article was for Douglas Murray to be a pompous piece of shit, and to sprinkle in some transphobia, cuz why not. Every fucking sentence feels laced with Tim Pool levels of "centrism". There's nothing anyone could get out of this article other than 'diversity is stupid because muslims are evil, also trans people are stupid and they're targeting children, so they deserve to get attacked'.

The fact that you posted this article at all, from Douglas "War on the West" Murray no less, is super fucking icky.

 

[Absent]

The diversity trap

If anyone reading this ever bought shares in the diversity racket, then I would suggest you start dumping them now. Not that I would blame you for having bought them in the first place. ‘Diversity’ has been the great mantra of our age. Like ‘equality’, it is one of those words set up to be

www.spectator.co.uk

I've always found it baffling why so many people on the left automatically assume "minority = progressive/leftist." Islam in particular, which as a whole, is far more conservative than Christianity, yet so many on the left assume it's a natural ally.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the left". People who work with minorities, or work for the enforcement of asylum rights, are usually progressives (conservatives just go "fuck the minorities, fuck the not me"), but are very aware that the people they help have different worldviews, levels of educations, cultural and religious values, etc - and are often much more progressive than them. Foreigners, for instance, can be very racist between each others, why would they be less than the locals ? The thing with human rights is that they apply by default. You do not treat injustice differently depending on the person. If someone flees a country because of political violence and torture, you don't filter him through your sympathies, you enforce laws that protect humans against political violence and torture.

And diversity, multiculturalism, is all about the very complex task to maximize freedoms of being. We all know (even hypocritical libertarians) that freedoms clash against each others, and that each one has to be limited in order to leave some room for the other. It's a very complex equation, that conservatives replace entirely by the one simple variable "me" (and abolish the rest). But it's an unavoidable challenge if you're not keen on totalitarianism, sanctionned prejudice and uniformizing exclusion. You have to deal with that, go to the limit of what identities you can articulate together and integrate (without assimilation) to a functionning society. And the path to do that, the "minimal" category you have to exclude, are the ultraconservatisms, the "eradicate everything that is not me" discourses.

And these can be found everywhere. You can't, for instance, exclude muslims by default on the ground that "Islam, as a whole, is far more conservative than Christianity". It would be unfair to many progressive or simply tolerant muslims, and also absurd given how insanely conservatives christians can be, especially in the US (see the de santis freak and his gooey followers), but also elsewhere (starting with the putin dictatorship). These stats are irrelevant, because they do not determine attitudes. It's simply more categories of people opposing each others (internally, no group is homogeneous), just like... many feminists, and many homosexuals, oppose transgender people. There is no spontaneous solidarity between minorities, because they are defined by traits independant from assholery. They all contain a lot of people keen on oppressing and excluding each others.

If there was the option to exclude problematic people, that is people who are included through the principle of diversity but oppose diversity (again, the "minimal" category to exclude for diversity to function), then it would be through an assholery detector, which doesn't exist (especially as it should make the distinction between self-indulging assholery and genuine well-meaning ignorance). And it would exclude people from all subcultures. And people from all subcultures would remain. Statistics aren't dramatic enough to be used for that.

Especially as, once more, you get the same ideological results at large, by people who don't belong to that group. Looking at the state of the US, on the Republican side, excluding muslims because of statistics-based conservative assumptions would be a precedent to exclude christians all the same. And with in a same broad sweep (as if there were just one christianity and just one islam).

In short, human rights don't apply to "allies" specifically. They apply upstream from that. And then, allies is a very transversal category anyway.

 

[Ag3ma]

If that holds true for the world number at 1 billion cows, I don't see it being way off that there was say 500 million wild ruminants across the world before humans started messing around.

Have you not considered that there is probably something seriously wrong with your homegrown estimates of prehistoric ruminants?

Much of the world did not have large ruminants at all, or where some of these creatures (like aurochs / cows) did range, the habitat was not favourable to high populations in the way North America was (e.g. forest/jungle rather than grassland). For instance, Asian elephants have never had anything close to the population of African elephants for a similar reason: the habitat is far less conducive to supporting high populations.