Funny Events of the "Woke" world

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
374
68
Country
United States
Avoiding the actual argument yet again. Two long-time top officials of the FDA quitting over political pressure is a good thing in your world? If this happened under Trump, we would not have heard the end of this.

I point out the hypocrisy over remdesivir and ivermectin with basically the same data for them. Either they should both be approved or neither should be approved. Having 1 approved and the other not approved is hypocrisy. We also have mask mandates with no proven efficacy either, but you're in the other thread saying masks work with no proven efficacy. Just because you like something (masks) doesn't mean it OK to be for just because you like it and it's OK to be against ivermectin just because you don't like it. The science has not proven either work so you should be against both of them if you are indeed objective and scientific about your recommendations.
Pal, I dont' know HOW to be pure enough in your eyes, so I've given up on trying.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
The specific concern about Trump was that he would rush approval of vaccines before the trials were complete - these concerns largely on the basis that Trump himself suggested he was trying to pressure the FDA into granting early release. If he did try (it's hard to tell with Trump because he lies and bullshits so much) then it seems he did not succeed. This of course exists with the context of Trump having already vigorously supported useless treatments such as hdroxychloroquine.

That the FDA was felt to have carried out proper diligence raised people's confidence in the vaccine.
No Trump actually said a number of things were being looked into and suggested they showed promise.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,203
1,706
118
Country
4
Please do not engage in personal attacks on other users.
You really want me to post showing some of the people flipping from claiming the vaccine will be unsafe to anyone not taking it is an idiot?
I mean I will, you know by now I will. Just do you really want me to do it and prove it? and if I do what's it worth because honestly I don't feel like wasting my damn time proving what plenty of people possibly even you already knows is a thing that went down just to have people sink back and try to ignore it only to pop up again at some point with other attempted gotchas.
You're such a walking sewer of bullshit.


“If the public-health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it — absolutely,” the California senator said during the first and only vice-presidential debate.

“But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I’m not taking it.”
....


Trump has consistently pushed for a coronavirus vaccine to be ready before Election Day, though his own health experts — including top infectious-disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci — have signalled that one will likely not be available until next year.

On Tuesday evening, the president, who has tested positive for the coronavirus, blasted Food and Drug Administration chief Stephen Hahn for tightening guidelines for vaccine producers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen and Agema

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
You're such a walking sewer of bullshit.
Yes, a sewer filled by the bullshit of people who to push their political side chose to try and frame Trump and the vaccines as being unsafe. A sewer filled with the bullshit of people who felt Scientists would let something so unsafe get out there. A sewer filled with the bullshit of people who only ended up helping the Anti-vaccine movement by suggesting it wasn't safe enough for the public because of Trump's actions. A sewer filled with bullshit that even now we see the impact of as people who heard their claims and followed one side but not fully are still sceptical, still concerned and rather than belay those fears people chose to flip from the vaccine wouldn't be safe due to Trump to anyone who doesn't take it is killing people. Switching from pretending to be concerned to score political points to that pretend concern turning to scorn for those who do no follow everything blindly.

Some-one has to remember the bullshit, you're seemingly just angry I keep reminding people of it.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's not my perspective that asserts this though, it is yours, or more aggressively MysteriousGX's. The concept of cis- only exists as a counterpart to trans-. You've asserted this artificial identity spectrum that leads to the inevitable conclusion that cis- has dominated society for generations. Whether that is explained by being the natural state or due to persecution is going to depend who you're talking to, but I'm not interested in rationalizing imaginary histories.
In what way have I done that. I've outright pointed out that trans people don't actually exist in history. But if the conclusion you want to take from that is that the gender politics of history are somehow devoid of "domination", and that historical systems of domination have no bearing on the treatment of trans people in the present, then you've pretty conclusively demonstrated the way in which that argument is inadequate on its own, because it's leading you to a faulty conclusion. History before the emergence of biological science was not a gender-anarchist utopia in which anything went, it involved an enforcement of gender normative behaviour far, far more brutal and uncompromising than anything that exists today.

Also, the concept of trans only exists in counterpart to some imagined point of normativity that, until we gave it a name, was largely deemed unworthy of discussion. The idea of being trans wasn't invented by trans people themselves, it was invented by a medical establishment overwhelmingly concerned with normalizing the "deviant" behaviour of non-conforming people. This was done under the logic of nature, that men and women possessed naturally distinct natures that aligned them towards particular roles, and the idea of nature in this case is one that can be followed back into history far beyond the birth of the biological sciences. Pamphlets were being written in Jacobean England declaring that women were becoming satanic hermaphrodites and society was about to collapse as the divinely ordained natural order that separated men and women was under threat. There are reasons for that that are specific to the time, the repeal of sumptuary laws and rapid urbanization creating a large population of disenfranchised women, but the logic that categorized these things as an offence against nature has a largely continuous history extending all the way to the present day.

As tempting as it may be to fall back on some kind of absolute nominalism and declare that trans people only came into existence with the word trans, it's a supremely arrogant presumption. It assumes that the experience or state of being a trans person could only be intelligible through a single gendered discourse (a discourse that was created in the European medical profession with the purpose of oppressing and eliminating trans people) and that no other discursive environment could possibly contain these experiences, which is blatantly not true. Similar experiences are found literally everywhere in history, and there's nothing inherently wrong with translating those experience, since almost every modern account of a historical phenomenon represents a process of translation.

Ok I think Tstorm is more on about the work of John William Money and the modern understanding of Gender etc based on his works.
What do you mean by this?

Firstly, the modern understanding of gender is not based on the work of Money. Money was a doctor who specialized in the treatment of intersexed people, and the greatest theoretical advancement to emerge from his work on intersexed people was about sex. Namely, Money observed that sex did not represent discreet biological categories, as was generally understood at the time, but a conditional alignment of traits, which ultimately included the adoption of gendered behaviour. In this regard, he was largely correct.

Again, I have to point this out every time someone brings up Money, but the one area conservatives seem to shit themselves inside out over him over is the one area where they would actually agree with him. Money believed that gender conforming behaviour was a necessary prerequisite for happiness, and that children should be pressured to adopt normal and clear gendered behaviour, including heterosexuality, and actively discouraged from any kind of gender-nonconformity. This lead him to advocate some extremely abusive treatment aimed at normalizing the gender identities of intersexed children. Money's work also lead to a clear policy of "correcting" the genitals of intersexed children while they were too young to consent, that only ended relatively recently.

Ironically, it's conservatives who are now advocating for the continuation of Money's more controversial work in the form of conversion therapy, active discouragement in the case of trans children, and so forth.

Money never worked with trans people, and would not have been supportive of trans people as he was not supportive of any form of gender non-conforming behaviour. His approach to his intersexed patients was that they were unfortunate victims who needed to be fixed so that they could integrate into society. Almost every awful thing he did can be traced back to that belief that gender conformity was required in order to live a happy or worthwhile life.

I don't know where anyone got this idea that Money created the modern understanding of gender, it's genuinely baffling to me. The modern understanding of gender is not the result of any one person, and if it was it would probably be someone like Simone de Beauvoir who basically had all the fundamentals down in the 1940s.
 
Last edited:

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
374
68
Country
United States
I think you meant you're unless you're admitting to being paranoid yourself.
I am. And it's justified.

It wasn't liberals who doxxed and committed identity theft on me for going in against them on an internet forum, jack. It was your bretheren in the "Trump is Always Right" cult.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,203
1,706
118
Country
4
Yes, a sewer filled by the bullshit of people who to push their political side chose to try and frame Trump and the vaccines as being unsafe. A sewer filled with the bullshit of people who felt Scientists would let something so unsafe get out there. A sewer filled with the bullshit of people who only ended up helping the Anti-vaccine movement by suggesting it wasn't safe enough for the public because of Trump's actions. A sewer filled with bullshit that even now we see the impact of as people who heard their claims and followed one side but not fully are still sceptical, still concerned and rather than belay those fears people chose to flip from the vaccine wouldn't be safe due to Trump to anyone who doesn't take it is killing people. Switching from pretending to be concerned to score political points to that pretend concern turning to scorn for those who do no follow everything blindly.

Some-one has to remember the bullshit, you're seemingly just angry I keep reminding people of it.
And you just double down on your delusions, despite being shown the actual facts you still choose to stick to your lies.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
And you just double down on your delusions, despite being shown the actual facts you still choose to stick to your lies.
What that at the time they suggested the vaccine wouldn't be safe because of Trump, that is what they said, they were suggesting it would be rushed and unsafe due to Trump. They help the anti-vaxxers massively because the anti-vaxx movement exists on both left and right despite what you may wish to believe.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
I am. And it's justified.

It wasn't liberals who doxxed and committed identity theft on me for going in against them on an internet forum, jack. It was your bretheren in the "Trump is Always Right" cult.
Or it was trolls who were fucking with everyone because unless they announced they did it I doubt you'd know.

Then again I know it was the "Trump is literally Satan and the Anti-Christ and Hitler re-incarnated" lot who did try to doxx me (and failed) because they tried to gloat about it at the time in responses to me on an internet forum. Hell they followed me across multiple sites doing it.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
What do you mean by this?

Firstly, the modern understanding of gender is not based on the work of Money. Money was a doctor who specialized in the treatment of intersexed people, and the greatest theoretical advancement to emerge from his work on intersexed people was about sex. Namely, Money observed that sex did not represent discreet biological categories, as was generally understood at the time, but a conditional alignment of traits, which ultimately included the adoption of gendered behaviour. In this regard, he was largely correct.

Again, I have to point this out every time someone brings up Money, but the one area conservatives seem to shit themselves inside out over him over is the one area where they would actually agree with him. Money believed that gender conforming behaviour was a necessary prerequisite for happiness, and that children should be pressured to adopt normal and clear gendered behaviour, including heterosexuality, and actively discouraged from any kind of gender-nonconformity. This lead him to advocate some extremely abusive treatment aimed at normalizing the gender identities of intersexed children. Money's work also lead to a clear policy of "correcting" the genitals of intersexed children while they were too young to consent, that only ended relatively recently.

Ironically, it's conservatives who are now advocating for the continuation of Money's more controversial work in the form of conversion therapy, active discouragement in the case of trans children, and so forth.

Money never worked with trans people, and would not have been supportive of trans people as he was not supportive of any form of gender non-conforming behaviour. His approach to his intersexed patients was that they were unfortunate victims who needed to be fixed so that they could integrate into society. Almost every awful thing he did can be traced back to that belief that gender conformity was required in order to live a happy or worthwhile life.

I don't know where anyone got this idea that Money created the modern understanding of gender, it's genuinely baffling to me. The modern understanding of gender is not the result of any one person, and if it was it would probably be someone like Simone de Beauvoir who basically had all the fundamentals down in the 1940s.
Well based on his wikipedia article for what it's worth


He was one of the first researchers to publish theories on the influence of societal constructs of gender on individual formation of gender identity. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Oh and something from woke World to laugh at


Man this does just keep happening doesn't it?

Totally nothing going on around people seeming getting positions based on identities and being given token positions of power such that would would claim to be something they're not to play the system.

 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,581
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
Please do not make inflammatory remarks.
Totally nothing going on around people seeming getting positions based on identities and being given token positions of power such that would would claim to be something they're not to play the system.

Yup, fuck white people.