@nomenym's banner p

nomenym


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:32:17 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 346

nomenym


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:32:17 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 346

Verified Email

I'm reminded of the Muslim suicide bomber's parents who said that they didn't know their son had become so religious as though that were the inevitable consequence. There is a sense in which leftists are just liberals that take the liberal's ideology seriously, and so liberals have no real textual defence against leftists. When a leftist takes them to task on an issue, they might have pragmatic objections but they can't argue the principle.

Diversity or equity? Pick one. They're basically antonyms.

The accusations of Aparthied are so revealing. It's been a long time since the end of Aparthied, and how has that been going? Jews should not want to end up in a position like white South Africans, and frankly that would be on the wildly optimistic side of my expectations for what would happen. Even assuming that their situation is like Aparthied, the response would be "yes, and?"

Right, as soon as the black mascots they hire start saying the wrong things, they're immediately oatracized. Their blackness is worth nothing unless they are telling white liberals what white liberals want to hear. Their power is largely illusory and dependent on the supremacy of liberal whites.

The way I've seen it explained is that this is no different from a 16 year old dating a 22 year old (or maybe even a 14 year old dating a 20 year old). Super ick.

The curious thing is the new emerging taboo against age differences in relationships. Large age differences have always been somewhat inappropriate and suspicious, but differences of only a few years between obvious adults are now being castigated. I would expect this to be simply female mate competition by older women reacting to the situation you describe, discouraging successful men in their 30s and 40s trading them in on the dating apps for a younger model. However, this taboo appears to be coming from younger age groups who seem convinced that age gaps imply grooming which implies non-consent. Why are some young women apparently trying taboo a 22 year old women dating a 28 year old man when they are also disproportionaly hooking up with older men on the dating apps?

So we're back to homosexual men in particular being especially sexually deviant--not just in their choice of partners, but also in their general propensity to trangress sexual norms. Personally, I'm inclined to see this as mostly just the expression of male sexuality unconstrained by females, but it also probably has something to do with homosexuals being a privileged class who have built an identity upon transgression. Perhaps this is partly where the "but I'm gay" defense comes from--to deny a gay man his sexual transgressions is inherently homophobic.

Of course, you could no doubt find heterosexuals who would engage in similar behavior, but proportionally many more gays seem to be up for it.

I can't really see how the "rationalist community" can be such a thing when it's utterly compromised. Progressive wokism, or whatever you want to call it, is the preeminent irrationalist philosophy of modernity, and the "rationalist community" is one of its vassals--all too often a willing one at that. From the outside, they're so absurd. Maybe they'll evolve into something worthy of their name eventually, but I see little sign of that. They would have been eugenicists 100 years ago.

It's curious how non-governmental organizations seem to be so often funded by governments and directly involved in important questions of governance. Was it always this way? It increasingly feels like we're being governed by non-governmental organizations.

No, it's going to be some flavor of insanity because it's purity spirals all the way down. The so-called less insane alternatives are just stepping stones between there and here.

That's my impression too. The important thing in this instance was not allowing the opposing team to score a point.

The curious part is that there are many things Nyberg could have said and done which would have got them into trouble even with their own side. Circular firing squads are hardly uncommon among these types of communities. Is it because the accusations came from outsiders? Is it because these particular accusations are not considered as awful as others?

Black history month is not for black people, it's for white people. It's for whites to celebrate non-whiteness. What matters is how whites see non-whites, and they see them mostly through American media. By "whites', I don't mean people with light skin, but rather a certain class of people--mostly light-skinned--who are very profoundly conscious of "race". Black history month exists because white people demand it, but this weird fact is just more obvious in Ireland than in the US.

I entirely agree. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is willing to make the compromises that are necessary to solve this problem, because even suggesting most of them is taboo. There will need to be a technological solution or natural selection will eventually solve us for it.

For women, social pressure is more real than gravity.

Among the people who are most likely to say this also, ostensibly, believe that the world is dominated by a white heternormative patriarchal tyranny, or something like that. They claim to believe the world is deeply unfair and they relish pointing out this unfairness everywhere, even when it makes no sense.

But it votes Democrat.

If the position is that people shouldn't perceive others flaunting their sexuality as a sexual display, then I'm not sure what kind of sensible argument there is to be had. I don't even think anyone actually believes that.

This is one of those arguments that is useful in some contexts but will be immediately abandoned in others. It's not a principle or rule, but a tool that is brought out to achieve a particular job and then shelved when it's no longer useful.

In the next breath, we'll be told how it doesn't matter what the speaker meant but rather how it was perceived by the listener that made if offensive.

With this degree of incoherence, it worries me even more that they're pushing sexuality on children, because there is no principle holding that back from going in any direction with it. It's like introducing an uncontrollable pitbull to a room full of toddlers. Sure, he might just play gently with the children, or he might not. Better to keep him from the children in the first place.

This kind of insane idealism can be worse than malice.

I fear the success of this movie amongst the wrong sorts of people may actually be detrimental to future efforts to fight child sex trafficking. Opposition to pedophilia will become a right-wing boogeyman, mostly disinformation, and, in any case, even if it is real, we will soon learn why it's actually a good thing. We can already see how expressing concern here is being interpreted as a dogwhistle for Qanon. Unfortunately, too many people will be far more horrified by the thought of being mistaken for a Trump supporter than they would at the possibility of indirectly aiding child sex traffickers. Sure, they may quietly, and in private, express their revulsion for pedophilia, but in public one would not want to say too much less the inquisitors get suspicious.

This movie presents an incredible opportunity for actual pedophiles, especially those among the Zeitgeist's activist class.

Perhaps this is uncharitable. No, it's definitely uncharitable. However, if I had made similar claims 20 years ago about transgenderism, then that would have also been uncharitable. Is there are bridge to far? Everyone says that there is, but then many of those people don't seem to have ever seen a bridge they didn't immediately run across, while dragging as many people along with them as they could. Sometimes being uncharitable is the only way to avoid being scammed, again.

God I hope my fear is misplaced.

With regard to number 3, the exact inverse appears to be the current trend. I wouldn't be surprised if throwing money at "mental health" is actually exacerbating the problem.

In practice, it's pretty close.

It's not just the superficial transformation, because it's usually accompanied by a kind of religious conversion, and the transition is like a "born again" experience, with the old identity becoming a "deadname". Moreover, if you question or resist this along the way, you will cast as a villain in the ideological grand narrative. There are so many ways this can either ruin your child or ruin your relationship with them, and in the end they are no less likely to commit suicide anyway.

The quip is that autogynephiles are men trapped in male bodies. Mulvaney doesn't seem to be that.

I'd be curious what a female version of one of these manifestos would read like, especially a female transman. My expectation is that it would try, and fail, to pass, so to speak, but I guess we may never know.

It's a strategic relativism. They use relativist arguments to "deconstruct" and undermine opposing views and "structures". Relativism is a weapon, and you use weapons against the enemy, not yourself.

Male sexual satisfaction is an infinite pit that one should never set as a goal. See blueberry porn and homosexuals.