Total posts: 1,950
-->
@Danielle
It is clear from your comment you do not understand Foucault or postmodernism.
Created:
Posted in:
In fact, I don't even think you're capable of recognizing that you're chained to the floor of the cave, much less that dancing shadows on its wall are made you create this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What Desantis did was the political equivalence of taking a shit on your neighbors lawn. The fact that you and every republican here saw that and thought “that’s why that guy should be president” is the entire point of this thread.
Are you actually this uninformed?
Have you somehow failed to learn that DeSantis did twice what the Biden Administration has been doing since Biden took office? The only difference is that when DeSantis put illegals on a plane, he sent them to Martha's Vineyard as opposed to Chicago.
Here's the bottom line: Every time you have an opinion on any issue, how you talk about the underlying issue betrays the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Whether it's COVID, the 2nd Amendment, immigration, crime and basically the universe of issues on which you speak, without exception the beginning and end of your contribution to that discussion is what I could hear from Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, or worse . . . the Young Turks.
Have you ever asked yourself this question: "What if I don't have all the facts?" Has it ever occurred to you, at any single point in your life, that your vitriolic outrage expressed against who you perceive to be your enemy is, in fact, the entire point of why those issues are portrayed as they are by the sources of information you believe are credible?
I have read enough of your mindless idiocy over the years to safely conclude that the entirety of your worldview is based on the fiction you've been shown.
And because the only world you've ever seen is the one you've observed on the cave wall while you're chained to the floor, you're not even capable of conceiving of the possibility of sunlight outside of it. Frankly, I doubt you'll even be able to understand what I just said before you google it. To save you the trouble, when you figure out I'm talking about Plato's Allegory of the Cave, give it a read. Realize where you are and why you're there. Then think about why it's in their interests that you remain as you are: chained to the floor, watching shadows you're not even capable of recognizing as such.
You'll probably convince yourself that the shadows are, in fact, reality; and the world is as you understand it.
But I would hope that you're not so incompetent you're incapable of having doubts. Though everything I have seen from you suggests otherwise. From how you talk about politics, to what you say when you're discussing them.
Now go off and be a good useful idiot for the people who have you chained to the floor, staring at those dancing shadows and shrieking about them online.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I say we turn Martha’s Vineyard into a prison island for illegal immigrants.
I say the Biden Administration's midnight flights of illegals to swing states should be the subject of a criminal investigation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Conservatives defend usurious bankers just to own those gender studies graduates.
That's a hilariously misinformed argument.
Have you not wondered why Biden isn't just erasing all as opposed to only a mere fraction of student debt?
Or do you not know anything about investment banking and debt securities?
Created:
An excellent breakdown of this pathological insanity:
An excerpt of that breakdown:
Politically charged ignorance and stupidity aside, there is an objective reality to these issues that must be confronted.
Flat-out refusal to acknowledge what is happening doesn't change the fact that reality is exactly what I said it was.
If you support so-called "gender affirming care," then you are either stupid or morally depraved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A wall.
I lol'd so hard when I read that reply.
Enforcing our immigration laws would be a good start.
More of them should be flown to Martha's Vineyard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It is common sense that if you want to get people to agree with your position
We'll see who wins in November.
There is no point in trying to persuade someone who will never move from their position, and you fall into that category.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
As for the topic, well-argued post. However, I would hesitate to throw all the blame on the psychology community. Many medical fields, especially those less based in concrete facts like psychology, are highly susceptible to public pressure. In fact, public pressure was a large driver of homosexuality’s removal from the DSM and popular sentiment in the years prior was part of the reason it was included in it.
You are quite correct that "public pressure" is why psychiatry branded homosexuality a disorder. That normative moralizing is not, contrary to the field of psychiatry's then-existing "experts" a "medical" practice.
But psychiatry is not medicine. It's psychiatry. I encourage you to read Madness and Civilization, Discipline and Punish and the History of Sexuality, by Foucault. He explores these themes at a greater level of depth.
The problem we have isn’t just coming from psychologists, although they do enable the problem by playing into the delusions of the mentally ill and confused. But the main issue we have is that of a perverted social status hierarchy. It is a very common experience for kids, especially girls, to brag about their mental illnesses. Being diagnosed with, say, depression and anxiety instantly grants you clout. The transgenderism movement is the newest, most “oppressed” status that you can attain. In addition to this, many try to escape their “oppressor” class of being white by joining the cult of the oppressed.And there is second-hand clout to be gained by being associated with a transgender, whether it be your child or your student that you helped confuse. So you can expect many adults in positions of trust to be provoking thoughts such as these within kids.Only by upsetting this prevailing societal dysgenic hierarchy can we expect downstream institutions to stop preying on the mentally ill, confused, and those incapable of making decisions for themselves (ie. Minors)
I agree with most of this, though remind me to respond to the rest, later. I don't have time right now, but I've got a lot to say on that.
Created:
-->
@thett3
And giving kids drugs as much as we do is obscene.
I don't have a problem with giving kids "ADHD medication," in most circumstances. Particularly teenagers who are both old enough to understand what amphetamines are and able to understand their risks. I object on principle to calling it "medication," because the normative justification the field of psychiatry invents to sell drugs to kids is exploitative. But the actual practice of taking adderall or whatever is something I don't object to in any way. Only the structures and norms surrounding why we do that, as a society.
But not every drug we prescribe to kids is as benign as amphetamines. In particular, antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications and pretty much any form of pharmaceutical intervention for socially constructed "disorders" like gender dysphoria is a pathological reflection of societal decay. And the idea of giving depo provera or other drugs in the same doses that were used to chemically castrate gay men less than two generations ago the last time the field of psychiatry over-reached is morally nauseating.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In some states, it's easier for a minor to get Gender surgery or drug therapy than it is to get a tattoo.
That is the case in California, for sure.
Same for abortion.
Created:
-->
@thett3
My problem is with children who were very clearly groomed and manipulated into doing irreversible harm to their body.
Danielle seems to deny that this has occurred, continues to occur in the present and will by all counts continue, to the extent it isn't stopped.
She also appears to begin from the incorrect proposition that psychiatry as such is, by its nature, inherently non-malicious based on her assumption that the language of "therapy" and "care" imply the absence of such intentions. And presumably that the absence of such intentions, means the absence of resulting harm.
This naive understanding of the history of psychiatry is unavailing for reasons I have already outlined.
Created:
-->
@thett3
He isn’t a pedophile. He’s an Irishman. Capable of making good and soulful work but also a degenerate, very common for the emerald isle
That particular irishman, however, has the proclivity to engage in sexual banter with young teenage girls in the same way bsh1 creeped on a certain boy of the same age.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Turning your son into a eunuch because he has some feminine traits is something I could see some barbarian khan from the steppe doing lol
The last time that practice was socially acceptable was when Nero led Rome. Something to keep in mind.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
He’s a pedophile?
He's the first to creep on any underaged girl that joined DDO, with rapey commentary and harassments both public and private.
And he pretty much thinks all gays are pedophiles, which implies projection on his part. But I won't psychoanalyze his deviant behaviour any further.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Your tacit support of child genital mutilation is duly noted, however
Well he's a fucking pedophile, so what do you expect?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I read your post above, which contains the question I have quoted below. I will not read another post like that.
But that all leads me back to my first reply - what would the correct care be assuming that transgenderism actually exist?
I have no objection to any adult's conscious choice to harm their body in any way they desire to do so, whether voluntary consumption of dangerous substances of any kind, voluntary bodily modification of any kind and the like. For example, I have no objection to adult's voluntary consumption of any substance whatsoever, whether it's pot, heroin, meth or depo provera. Likewise, I have no objection to any adult's voluntary choice to undergo any bodily modification, whether it's plastic surgery, piercings, gauges, obnoxious tattoos or sex change operations.
However, we are not talking about voluntary harm an adult causes to his or her own body. We are talking about something I overwhelmingly object to: pseudoscience being used to harm people in egregious and unforgivable ways. Worse, that harm is being sold as the opposite. Not as what it is, but as something beneficial. Some kind of "treatment" or "care" when in fact it is no such thing.
What we are talking about is a field of so-called "expertise," that at once defines the scope of its own legitimacy and forecloses all external criticisms of it. We are talking about the field of psychiatry. More specifically, we are talking about a very narrow set of activities within the scope of "gender affirming care," that ostensibly constitute "psychiatric practice," according to the psychiatrists.
I criticised that specific activity, when I wrote "gender affirming care" is a snare and a delusion, because it is the same mistake made within living memory repeating again.
I cannot imagine why you would ask me "what would the correct care be assuming that transgenderism actually exist?"
While not directly relevant to the point I made, gender dysphoria is not a "disorder" for the same reason homosexuality is not a disorder. And it does not require "treatment" for the same reason homosexuality does not require treatment.
The "correct" practice would be for the field of psychiatry to desist from all activities within the scope of "gender affirming care," regardless of whether gender dysphoria is or is not a "disorder."
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Are you suggesting that people's personal freedom and bodily autonomy should be totally ignored and discontinued, or just persuaded against and shamed like homosexuality?
Your question isn't really a question, is it? Instead, it's an argument that you've disguised as a question to suggest without merit that agreeing with what I said implies either of those absurdities.
I don't see the point in denying nonsensical implications that no rational person could reach from any lucid reading of what I wrote --- here or otherwise (and including to the extent you have contradicted what I said about the history/practice of psychiatry from your apparently misinformed position).
So should people's gender or sexual identity not be affirmed?
It seems we must distinguish between two obviously distinct concepts: personal freedom and bodily autonomy vs. gender or sexual identity.
That all may exist under conditions of liberty, where each is free to be as they are and live his or her life according to one's individual choice, and do so without external resistance is the value premise from which this discussion rightfully begins. For the sake of simplicity, let's just call that "being free." That all have a right to be free is self evident. On this point, I'm pretty sure we both agree.
Being free is not the same thing as being "affirmed," as belonging to the external categories we either select for ourselves or which are thrust upon us by intrinsic qualities. To be "affirmed" is more than being free, because affirmation as a form of external validation requires that others "affirm" you.
On a personal level, bigotry in the forms of homophobia, racism and the like deeply offends me. But my subjective disagreement with another person's opinions, however idiotic they may be, do not give me the right to compel another's "affirmation" of anything. Klan members have the right to be Klan members, just as the Family Research Council has the right to publish pseudoscience on the supposed "dangers" of kids raised by two dads.
Similarly, to be "affirmed" as belonging to the external categories we either select for ourselves or which are thrust upon us by intrinsic qualities, to any extent it occurs must never come at the expense of being free (as I have described above). And that's actually a lot closer to the point of what I wrote.
Your particular error (among others) is in your presumption that systems of power/knowledge which ostensibly "affirm" such "gender" or other identities both actually do so and exist for that purpose, such that they could not bring about any harmful impact since doing so would be contrary to how you understand their "intent" --- even in the face of contrary evidence which you have, yourself, referenced. This is one reason why you are wrong, but there are others.
Psychiatry is exactly what Foucault said it was. It is a field of expertise reinforced by practitioners and their instrumentalities of association and production of what passes for psychiatric expertise, according to those in the field. It has caused considerable harm in the past and continues to do so now. The form of those harms has changed, examples of which I listed in my OP.
But the heteronormative prejudices have not. Particularly to the extent the so-called field of psychiatry has pathologized ordinary gender play, given it a name and by implication a new category within which a new class of supposed victims must fall . . . and even more egregiously on whose behalf the field of psychiatry now purports to advocate.
A very small subset of people may, in fact, be trans. But for most, it's play that loses appeal before puberty. And if it doesn't, most of the time it's just a fetish. I don't have a problem with people having fetishes or even orienting their lives around that fetish. I also don't have a problem with people doing literally anything to their bodies they desire, to the extent they retain the agency to make such decisions.
Children, however, have no such agency . . . at least before they are 14-16 years old. Now, a field of self-styled experts peddle pseudoscience on par with the fraud they peddled in support of lobotomies and all the other shit you listed. Much of which is even more deficient than Family Research Council's crackpot nonsense opposing gay parenthood.
It's bullshit on stilts sold as gender affirming therapy. And it's the opposite of progress.
The point is to get the psychiatrists to leave the kids alone.
The rest of what you said is irrelevant. Further dialogue beyond what I have written here here is not necessary.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
I'm surprised you would present Foucault in a positive light.
And why is that?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Everyone else seems to have understood it just fine. Only you seem to have struggled.
That tells me we are in two possible worlds. In the first possible world, your reading comprehension is below par. In which case, why would I bother since the level of abstraction involved here is likely to be over your head. In the second possible world, your reading comprehension is just fine. In which case, your ostensible confusion is an argumentative strategy, wherein you will misrepresent what I said and attempt to rebut some mischaracterization of it.
I'll just tell you that I do not believe you have represented ostensible failure to comprehend what I wrote in good faith. The degree to which you have already mischaracterized what I wrote tells me you are actively refusing to engage with the substance, which tells me you're probably dishonest and underhanded. In fact, your conduct so far entirely reminiscent of Cathy Newman's behaviour in this interview. I'm not going to play that game. When you have something meaningful to say, I'll chime in. Thus far, you have failed as evidenced by the wealth of other responses --- including those specifically addressing your own.
Bit of advice. If you pull that shit in a professional context outside of academia, no one will trust you. You will come across as a manipulative, shifty and underhanded trickster that refuses to communicate professionally or deal with colleagues or clients in good faith. This character flaw of yours, however, is likely not inherent and therefore correctable. After all, the only place you would have learned that method of mischief is by listening to someone who conducts himself or herself like Cathy Newman did in the interview I linked above.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I also note that, for some odd reason, the prolific refuters of this stereotypically "right wing" belief are no where to be found.
Because they do not exist. No one actually believes this idiocy.
Created:
I am glad no one disputes that so-called "gender affirming care" is a snare and a delusion. Further, that only whatabboutist sexual predators/deviants --- badger --- and chatbots --- that pink profile user whose name I have already forgotten --- disagree is a good sign.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Seems like Martha's Vineyard was unwilling to act on its professed values and you're butthurt about it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Thank you. He has Jordan Peterson, who knows most of what I've said here. In fact, the only thing Peterson doesn't know is how Foucault plays into this.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@Shila
You should probably steralyze yourself in response to the Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I agree.
Some historical perspective. . . . . . The actual practice of so-called "gender affirming care" is indistinguishable from the war crimes for which we hung Nazis at the end of World War II, after convicting them for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. The only thing that is different is the story people tell themselves or hear from fields of so-called "experts" within the so-called field of "psychiatry." It's worth keeping in mind that Nazis forcibly castrated Jews, first. That was something they tried before the gas chambers.
The more I think on it, the more it strikes me that even suggesting to a child that being born into the “wrong” sex is even possible is deeply insidious. This idea can be very seductive to people who feel they don’t fit in or are going through some kind of trauma, and they can easily find themselves deep into a rabbit hole that offers some temporary catharsis (and importantly a lot of social validation) but causes them lasting harm in the long run.
If you do a search on Google Scholar for comorbidities between so-called "gender dysphoria" and literally all other psychiatric "conditions," you'll be horrified by what you find.
Here's one of the most common, and most egregious, cases for boys (post DSM-5):
Boy is diagnosed with some variation of "autism" at or around the point of early childhood. Boy is prescribed a combination of all kinds of drugs, typically at least something like Concerta or Ritalin (which I don't have a problem with giving to non-autistic kids or adults, btw., but I see no value whatsoever in giving it to autistic kids that are non-high functioning), a mood stabilizer, an anti-anxiety medication and whatever else the psychiatrist can justifiably bill to the kid's parents' insurance provider. And there's a LOT of room to play there.
Boy's parents, knowing nothing about psychiatry, trust the "doctor" is doing what is in their kid's best interest because that's the societal expectation of all doctors. And parents, however well meaning, are incapable of ascertaining the difference between what is and is not in their child's best interest because they are not subject matter experts within the alleged field of alleged knowledge that is "psychiatry." Nor do they have a even minimally adequate amount of subject matter expertise to even have that discussion, in almost all circumstances.
But by the time boy gets into school, there are problems. Because he's autistic. After he gets an IEP, he's going to be "working" with "educators." Those adults likely, at most, have masters degrees in "education." I could write a book on why a masters degree in "education" is something that should not even be offered by universities, but I'll avoid that digression. The point is that those venomous people bring to their implementation of this particular hypothetical boy's IEP all their pseudo-moralistic, normative and pseudo-scientific bullshit about "trans."
It's not even trans people that push trans bullshit on children. It's medically illiterate, but politically indoctrinated "educators" who this hypothetical boy is going to spend most of his waking hours with at school. Usually elementary and middle, but sometimes high school too; whether inside or outside of special ed programs. This is where he learns about "trans." Eventually, he might even be convinced by these people that he, too, was "born in the wrong body." After all, what else could explain why he has such social difficulty making friends, connecting with people and the like? He may know that he is autistic, but he doesn't have the conceptual model to distinguish between "problems that are attributable to autism" and "problems that are not attributable to autism."
So one day, he "has the courage" to "come out" as "trans." After hearing about it from these same people who talk about "trans" with the zeal and persistence of fundamentalist missionaries, he's sold. But he's nine years old, and doesn't have a clue what sex is, what gender is or what the biological differences between males and females are. This is a momenuts day for the the "educators," who "celebrate" his "courage" and lavish him with social praise for this "act" of "bravery." And every other child in these adults' purview sees what is happening. They, too, wish to receive the social reward of such "acts" of "bravery."
So begins the cascade of ostensibly trans kids concentrated within special ed programs; a predominant share of which who previously were diagnosed with autism (including high functioning autism). Now begins the "gender reassignment" conveyor belt that likely starts by encouraging a prepubescent child to cross-dress, consume chemically castrating cocktails of pharmaceuticals and eventually undergo surgical castration (i.e., the first step in the battery of sexual mutilation that psychiatrists who practice "gender affirming care" call "reassignment surgeries"). But, what if as a parent you object to the "care" of these liars, butchers and frauds? Of course, you're a transphobe who must be silenced while the psychiatrists sexually mutilate your son.
This is on par with Nazi war crimes. Everyone within the alleged field of so-called psychiatry that is willing to participate in these activities should be, at a minimum, strippped of their license to practice, imprisoned and probably kept there for the rest of their lives. The only reason I wouldn't recommend putting them before a firing squad is because I oppose the death penalty.
Particularly because these same ideologies define gender roles in an extremely rigid and frankly rather sexist manner. If you instead of being tall, broad, deep voiced, sports loving or love outdoors/guns/ other “manly” things, constantly horny for women, square jawed, don’t care about clothes… if you’re something different…perhaps you aren’t really a man? Or maybe just less of one?
That is exactly the same insidious evil in play here. Before the DSM-III, the idea was to make all stereotypically effeminate boys "more masculine," where masculinity was measured against little more than then-existing cultural artifacts like how (ironically) James Dean looked. And to make all stereotypically masculine girls "more feminine," where femininity was measured against Marilyn Monroe's portrayal by Hollywood or some other archetype from some other fiction.
What's ironic is that the intersectionalists figured out as far back as the 1970s that it is egregiously wrong to use heteronormative stereotypes of masculinity or femininity to ascertain whether someone is or is not heterosexual. Yet, the next generation of another "field" (e.g., education) uses those exact same heteronormative stereotypes to basically bully boys that want to play with Barbie Dolls or My Little Pony or girls who want to play in the dirt, into being "trans."
This is the state of psychiatry, now. As a field it was fucked beyond all repair before the 1970s. Academia, largely in France and California, called bullshit. Foucault led the charge, in large part. That's what got "homosexuality" out of the DSM-III. Psychiatry had its internal crisis of "what if we're the baddies?" And for a brief period of time, it looked like things might be improving. But now, they're back doing the same old shit they were doing before the DSM-III, just with new branding. It is repulsive. Any psychiatrist who supports this should hang themselves from the nearest rafter.
Deliberately turning children away from self acceptance and towards an ideology that harnesses their worst impulses in the service of their own destruction is horrifying.
Especially when every level of why this this praxis is wrong, was known/knowable based on information known in the field before the DSM-IV was even published.
Created:
Fields of expertise and their institutions are self-reinforcing instrumentalities, through which power is exercised and the opportunity to do so is created by their production of knowledge. This, Foucault taught from the 1960s and beyond.
Psychiatry is one such field of expertise. The American Psychiatric Association is one such institution. Both produce certain "knowledge," including, as relevant here, the DSM-III. The practice of so-called "psychiatry" is one such means through which their power is exercised.
Foucault excoriated the so-called field of psychiatry for the extent of its pseudoscientific fraud in the DSM-II. The DSM-II identified "homosexuality" as an ostensibly "diagnosis." Then, the APA --- in its infinite wisdom --- concluded that homosexuality was a "disorder" with potentially pathological roots. The APA and its allegedly "expert" members had no shortage of theories as to why.
Then-existing empirically supported theories of normal variation (i.e., "born that way") were rejected in favor of normative pontification, according to stereotypes of "masculinity" and "femininity," among others. Actual scientific proof that homosexuality was not the result of individual pathology yielded to then-prevailing behavioral theories, including excessive mothering, hostile fathering or sexual abuse in childhood explained personality deficits based on those same stereotypes and lacking anything approximating empirical support.
And for all its moralizing, normative bullshit, the APA proposed no shortage "therapies" for the "deviance" of homosexuality as it was then conceptualized by the so-called field of psychology. They included electro convulsive "therapy," including by placing electrodes on the genitals of stereotypically "effeminate" young boys or stereotypically "masculine" young girls, and directing "corrective" shocks through their bodies at that location while exposing them to homosexual pornographic material. This torture was called "operant conditioning," a form of purportedly
behavioral therapy to "treat" this so-called "disorder." Of course, it failed without exception because the behavioral theories were devoid of anything even vaguely resembling evidentiary support. But the psychiatrists were undeterred.
Excessive and often physical punishment, exposure to heterosexual pornography, sexual abuse at the hand of a member of the opposite sex and finally pharmaceutical and surgical interventions followed. The pharmaceutical "treatments," at the time, included giving boys high-dose injections of medroxyprogesterone acetate. Or as you may know it, "Depo Provera."
Depo Provera was the drug that the British government forced on Alan Turing, to chemically castrate him for being gay, as was a routine practice among psychiatrists to "treat" all "homosexuals" at that time. It is the same drug that is routinely administered to sex offenders for chemical castration, now. It reduces sex drive in men and is used as a form of chemical castration to control inappropriate or unwanted sexual behavior in those with paraphilias (like when homosexuality was one of those, according to the so-called field of psychology) or hypersexuality, including in convicted sex offenders.
But Depo Provera is not the only drug used for chemical castration nor is its use, or that class of drugs' use limited to chemical castration. It is routinely prescribed by psychiatrists to treat the current disorder that's all the rage now . . . gender dysphoria. In fact, the same drug at the same dosages and on the same regimen could be prescribed to a prepubescent boy as a form of so-called "puberty blocker" and/or "feminizing hormone therapy" due to its progestogenic and functional antiandrogenic effects.
Nor was "chemical castration" the only "treatment" for "homosexuality," according to the APA and its DSM-II. Surgical castration was the more permanent solution, and tens of thousands of men, teenagers and boys were involuntarily surgically castrated based on nothing more than a psychiatrist's imperiousness based no nothing more than his own pseudoscientific delusion. If you were found to be "a homosexual" by such a fraud and refused your "treatment" you would be involuntarily committed by a court and forced to undergo the procedure anyway. This practice continued in the United States until well into the late 1980s, even AFTER THE DSM-II WAS REPLACED by the DSM-III. It took about a generation for practitioners to catch up.
However, the field of psychiatry was not done sexually mutilating children with chemicals and butchery under the snare and delusion of "therapy." Nothing has actually changed, in substance or practice. Only how the field of psychiatry tells the world at large to conceptualize what it is doing. So-called "trans" issues are now in vogue and allegedly "gender affirming care" has taken the place of both chemically and surgically mutilating children. But with new branding, new messaging and new politics.
Such. Great. Progress.
- Instead of "treating" the purported "deviancy" of homosexualuty (DSM-II), now the field of psychiatry "affirms" the purported "gender" of supposed "transexuals" (DSM-5).
- Instead of "chemically castrating" stereotypically effeminate, often prepubescent or barely pubescent boys with high dose regimens of Depo Provera (or other such drugs) because of their "homosexuality" (DSM-II); the field of psychiatry purports to "transition" or "block the puberty of" those exact same stereotypically effeminate, often prepubescent or barely pubescent boys, with those exact same high dose regimens of Depo Provera (or other such drugs) because of their "gender dysphoria" (DSM-5).
- Instead of surgically castrating them for homosexuality, psychiatrists surgically castrate them to begin their "gender reassignment."
How far we have come. This snare and delusion.
But the approach is far, far more evil now. Now, the societal conditions favor inducing children to opt-in to the "in group" that is "trans." Without any regard for the actual consequences at all. Then, at least you weren't incentivized to involuntarily place yourself onto the "transitioning gender conveyor belt" of chemical and surgical sexual mutilation. But now? You totally are. Especially if you were already involved in the psychiatric racket, for something else. Why else would such an alarmingly high amount of so-called "trans" people have so many extensive co-morbidities?
Gender affirming care is no such thing. It's the 2022 iteration of what Foucault excoriated the APA for, before the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM-II.
This malicious fraud must be identified for what it is, that all may recognize its inherent, egregious and well-masqueraded evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder how far down this road America will travel before it is acceptable to appreciate men again, in the family, in marriages, and in the workplace.
I don't know. I used to think that wokeness would run its course in much the same way that a virus would. But I underestimated the timescale.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I am beginning to think you're a troll account. The nonsense you're talking is on par with what wylted used to do when he was trying to stir the pot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Obviously, the idea of so-called "reparations" is unconscionable at every conceivable level. Particularly where, as is the case with BLM, that entire group seems to be no more than a front to launder money from the purported "cause" to the purported "leaders."
Financially, BLM is basically the same thing as the PLO.
Politically, they're basically the same thing as Hamas.
But BLM's similarities to terrorist organizations is low-hanging fruit; that group is so easy to find fault with any idiot could do it, and only an idiot could possibly support their activities (much less donate money to their objectives).
Here's the broader point to consider: WHY are so-called "reparations" even proposed? Take Ta Nasi Coates' argument at face value, as an illustration of that argument's stupidity. I'll pick on him since he's a target my own size, as opposed to whoever these woke people are posting in this thread.
The idea is that by giving money to individuals who purportedly belong to one or more group(s) that were 'oppressed' we are rebalancing the scale of historical inequity. Essentially, so-called 'white' wealth has accumulated over time and that accumulation is due in substantial part to slavery. White people got rich. Black people got less than 40 acres and a mule. A century of segregation followed, which further prevented 'black' wealth accumulation.
Assuming for the sake of argument that wealth can be accumulated by groups (as opposed to individuals, who, it turns out, are the actually relevant societal units unlike groups), the way you'd prove that argument is by talking about things like average net worth of 'black' families, relative to something as a point of comparison.
If you accumulated that data, which some people --- i.e., Thomas Sowell --- have, I'm sure many would be shocked to learn that black folks in fact meteorically improved their standard of living, generation after generation until a certain series of events in the 1960s when LBJ was elected. What changed, you might wonder? Well, the state decided that it was going to involve itself in black folks' lives to an increasing degree, which was one of those stupid ideas that progressives implemented 'with the best of intentions' without any notion of what 'could possibly go wrong'.
Tremendous horror unfolded. People wonder why the lack of black fathers is so pervasive that it's a meme. LBJ's presidency and social initiatives are why. The government destroyed families, started constructing housing projects like Pruitt–Igoe and kicked off a range of initiatives that vitiated the human networks through which black folks' lives and standards of living had improved since the end of the civil war. And that's all very clear in the data Sowell has published on time and time and time again.
It's tragic, really. Expanding welfare more than anything else probably did the most harm, because that meant that the financial costs of children born out of wedlock no longer had to be a father's responsibility. So, with reproduction unmoored from marriage; black fatherhood, or the lack of it, became a meme. Roe v. Wade thereafter made those problems worse. Entire generations of black babies were aborted after that egregiously wrong decision was handed down. When you actually look at the demographics of who was aborting babies, the data are sufficient to make your blood run cold. If there ever was any so-called 'white' privilege, it was the fact that you had a much better chance of not being aborted if you were white than if you were black, post-Roe. Sowell compellingly argues that without Roe, more black babies would have been born and they would have accumulated considerable more social and economic capital, absent the "Great Society" bullshit of LBJ's presidency.
In reality, however, intergenerational poverty is hardly limited to black folks' though. White trash families throughout the South and the rest of this country remain at the bottom of the economic scale. Ever been to West Virginia? Eastern Kentucky? California's numerous trailer parks? They're as bad or worse as Chicago's South Side from a poverty perspective. The reasons why are the same: there is no surer way to remain poor for the rest of your life than to have kids out of wedlock.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It is existentially offensive to see arguments this stupid proposed, explicitly or otherwise. Lets decompose that bullshit narrative, together.
Hi! Random white person whose ancestors didn't get here until about 1935, I'm second generation born in America.
Who you are, what your nationality is, who your alleged "ancestors" were, what color your skin allegedly is, when your 'ancestors' purportedly "g[ot] here" (wherever "here" is, though I suspect it's the United States because you've likely never even been outside it) or how many generations your family has been physically present within that country's borders are all irrelevant to anything you could possibly say on this or any issue.
Let me clue you in, since it's beyond obvious you missed the memo. Attributes of the speaker do not impact the validity of the ideas that person advances. By implication, who gets to talk about any issue; whose opinions can or should be considered are likewise unaffected by those attributes. Your so called "perspective" (read: that 'speaking as a random white person' bullshit) is worthless, for the same reason.
Bringing historic[al] data about slave ownership into a white privilege debate is folly and likely to just muddy the waters.
So, what you are actually arguing is that anything that contradicts whatever story you're telling "is folly and likely to just muddy the waters"? Let us explore the levels of this argument's stupidity together, that such errors may never be repeated again.
First, that "folly" directly contradicted your point(s). It is neither folly nor does it have any propensity to "muddy the waters," as you incorrectly claimed.
- According to you, so called 'whites' as a group are responsible for slavery and therefore inequitably benefit from so called 'white privilege'. Don't forget what you wrote, after all . . . "slavery and other legal subjugations helped create and support [white privilege]."
- Another user cited historical data indicating that only a small percentage of white people owned slaves: only an incredibly small fraction of so called 'whites' actually owned slaves; almost all did not.
- That data directly contradicts, and therefore undermines, any proposition that so called 'whites' as a group are responsible for slavery.
Second, you will be shocked to learn that any discussion of white privilege necessarily begins with historical data. You can't even define the term, much less conceptualize it, without pointing to figures ostensibly showing 'inequity'. It turns out that disparate impact arguments are the beginning and end of the intellectual support behind white privilege. That's all and only what's out there. There is nothing else.
Let's review what a disparate impact argument is.
- For example. How do you show 'white privilege' in the context of criminal justice? As one way, you might note purported sentencing differentials between 'whites' and 'blacks', or other seeming differences at any level of the criminal justice system or some such other purportedly 'disparate' impact.
- Another example. How do you show 'white privilege' in the context of career advancement? As one way, you might cite a seeming lack of 'representation' among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.
- Yet another example. How do you show 'white privilege' in the context of college admission? A favored way would be to complain about how the SAT and ACT are "racist" because it turns out that blacks don't perform as well as whites, on average.
These, like all disparate impact arguments, are fundamentally idiotic. But they rely, or purport to rely, on historical data --- which was the whole fucking point of why the other user cited historical data about slave ownership.
So is it your claim that the only historical data that can be considered on issues of so called 'white privilege' are those which support your bullshit narrative?
Or is it your claim that anything that contradicts your bullshit narrative muddies the water?
Or is just 'folly'?
I don't feel GUILTY about SLAVE OWNERSHIP,
Why not? Because you're not 'white'? Some other reason(s)? Do tell.
I'd bet you can't even coherently define 'white' as you have used that term here.
- What does it mean?
- Who are the 'white' people?
- Who are not the 'white' people?
- Why?
but that isn't the same thing as understanding what white privilege is, the forms it can take, how slavery and other legal subjugations helped create and support it,
Define the term. What exactly is white privilege, as you understand it? Do not just copy and paste something else someone else wrote. Explain it in words that are yours.
- What exactly is "white privilege"?
- What "forms" can it "take"?
- What role did "slavery" have in creating "white privilege"?
- What supposed "other legal subjugations" played any role, and what was that role each ostensibly played?
and recognizing that if there's something sensible to do about it in the short term, it should be examined for feasibility.
- Before we even get into sensibility or feasibility, let's start with what you're proposing to be done in the first place.
We are bound by the Constitution to "form a more perfect union," in my book, and just because America's imperfect doesn't mean it isn't great. Just that it can be better.
- How are you going to make America better?
Lead the way to the promised land, kiddo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
@Shila
Assume a reasonably intelligent, impartial observer who is undecided accepts everything you have said at face value, and everything else you might say or that even could be said in support of your points. You have made the most compelling case that can be made and none stand able or willing to refute you.
What do you do next?
How exactly are you going to solve whatever set of problems you think you're talking about here?
What even are the problem(s) you're trying to solve, at a concrete (read: not abstract) level?
If we're talking about so-called "white privilege," what exactly are you trying to change in the society? And why?
If we're talking about supposed historical wrongs, what exactly are you proposing to do about it? And why?
I do not expect either of you are capable of answering these questions. At best, you're going to repeat the same things you've already said. At worst, you're going to prove how absurd your positions are because you're going to act as if concretely explaining whatever you think you're talking about somehow diminishes the moral force of your conviction. But in reality, that kind of reaction is why the ideas you both have advocated for here cannot be taken seriously.
Policies are forward-looking, when your ideas even in their best case are backward-looking speculation; nonsense focusing on contrived historical wrongs committed against groups by other groups at levels of abstraction so vague they approximate incoherency. It's all hilariously Nietzschen, actually.
We can talk about whether any plan you come up with is realistic, but before we can assess the merits of any plan, we have to first figure out what exactly you think the problem is now and/or as it will continue in the future. But I haven't seen either of you even take the first step in even defining what any conceivable problem might possibly be at a level that lends itself to any solution whatsoever.
I am very serious about this too. And if it turns out, as I suspect our little exercise here will demonstrate, that you can't even concretely define the problem(s) you're complaining about, why would you possibly think that any impartial observer should ever take this bullshit seriously?
You're selling a narrative that is less persuasive than Scientology, with the signaled moral impetus of a religious revival. Show us the way to the promised land. But first, tell us what that promised land is.
For all your sound and fury, your ideas signify nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
Covid was a useful political instrument that has since outlived its purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I agree. The term "white privilege" exists to create intra-class division between whites and blacks, so everyone is distracted with issues that cannot be solved while those that can are rigged against both (within the middle and working classes).
By even engaging in the discussion, intra-class division is fomented. Which is the whole point. And the solution? Expand the power of the state, of course. And limit everyone's freedom even further.
This idea that problems must be examined at a "systemic" level such that they require action by the government --- and especially the federal government --- is toxic and should be purged from the consciousness of all Americans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
As a white person, many crimes I may commit will net much lower prison sentences than if I were black.
This was an insightful post, because you referred to an empirically demonstrable trend that can be measured and is verifiably the case.
But the problem isn't that white people receive preferential treatment, even to the extent that may appear to be the case based on certain data sets. Rather, the problem is that our so called criminal justice system fails all with differing degrees of horror when certain racial groups are compared to one another. After all, there are more races than only black and white. The picture is a lot more complicated when the baseline is adjusted to account for the diversity in our society.
My point is not that non-equitable outcomes don't matter. It's about the nature of the conversation anyone is necessarily having, to the extent they're discussing so called "white privilege." Is the outcome desired, to give more power to the state to be more barbaric to more people, if only the degree of barbarity is similar from group to group? I should hope not.
That's why the conversation needs to change. All this discussion about so called "white privilege" does nothing to solve the underlying problems that create the metrics we say illustrate the trends. But solving the problems seems like it might be more productive. Or at least trying to do so.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I would have said blockade before the mortgage crisis. Now with the mortgage crisis, it's invasion.
Xi is going to take a page right out of Putin's book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And destruction is the point. Joe Biden is destroying the entire country of Ukraine, so he and his son can pocket the proceeds of Ukraine's natural gas commercialization. That's the whole point of this idiotic "war."
Created:
My Predictions: We are in the Fourth Turning.
- Newsom is the democratic nominee for 2024.
- DeSantis is the republican nominee for 2024.
- Donald Trump is arrested by Merrick Garland's "justice" department.
- Rather than face the music over China's failing economy, Xi Jinping invades Taiwan before 2024.
- A new, highly infectious variant of monkeypox breaks out in the months before 2024.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mass starvation is a lot messier than either female abortions or male sterilization.
Yes, but mass starvation has the useful quality of giving liberals something to rally against.
Just wait until we get another Live AID for the famine globalist environmentalists cause.
In much the same way we have all this support for Ukraine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fantasies for me, at the expense of facts for thee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Projection? And just what exactly do you think I am projecting?
In case it wasn't clear, I don't think any other aspect of your most recent post to me requires my response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm reminded of the news reports from V for Vendetta. lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
A description of reality is: (a) either true or false; and (b) either complete or incomplete.
A "narrative" is an interpretation of reality that is cast in the light most favorable to how you'd like for reality to have been. Parts may be true. Other parts may be false. Aspects may be complete, but the picture as a whole often never is. That is to say, narratives are bullshit.
And I'm calling bullshit on what you've been peddling here, which is why we're not connecting. You are engaging in advocacy for a particular narrative that you don't even recognize as such, because (1) you've accepted it as fact uncritically and (2) to the extent that you are not only unwilling, but demonstrably unable to contend with the fact that a timestamped video from the capital obviates your claims as to the sequence of events on January 6th.
I am calling bullshit on your doing so. You respond with wild accusations that directing your attention to what all can see with their own eyes somehow makes me a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy.
At least Oro had the temerity to claim "But your eyes deceive you!" You have not even gone that far.
Oro's argument is "Don't look up! But if you do, what you think you see isn't what you see!"
You're arguing "There is no such direction as up!"
Further, I'm increasingly irritated by how you keep trying to put me in the same bucket as Trump supporters. That specious idiocy is what pisses me off and it is why I don't take your views on these issues seriously. You flat-out refuse to engage in good faith and stereotype everyone who disagrees with you as embodying the archetypally worst version of your perceived "opposition." Only to the limited extent I see you trying to engage in good faith with the facts will I respond to the substance of any point you make. This is unfortunate, because abent the partisan bullshit you clearly have the capability to understand what I am saying.
In case you forgot, I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020. I voted for Hillary in 2016 and did not vote in the 2020 presidential election (although I liked the libertarian candidate). You have been informed of where I stand on that set of issues no less than two dozen times. I did not support Trump then and he is hardly my preference now. You are readily aware of the fact that I'm not even a Republican, and certainly not a "MAGA" type. And yet, you act as if I'm marching on Charlottesville --- which is beginning to piss me off to the extent I'm going to become far more dismissive of anything you say moving forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
When I said "many have alleged," that was to avoid defaming Epps. All relevant indicia obviate any doubt as to on whose behalf he was acting and why.
The underlying time-stamped video evidence from the Capitol and the 18 or so hours before speaks for itself. And much of it is out there in the world for all to see.
There is no amount of media gaslighting, obfuscation, selective coverage or adjective-laden yellow journalism that makes your repetition of their underlying claims credible. To that issue, your citation to WaPo, NYT and various third party "fact checkers," who have written articles to reinforce a clear disinformation campaign on this issue is wholly unavailing. Which should come as no surprise to you. Be clear on this point: when you cite a self-styled "fact checker," you're pointing to a source that has less authority than the National Enquirer or Alex Jones.
Don't look up.
Created:
Maybe stop being a whiny little bitch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am starting to wonder if CNN is purposely doing wall to wall coverage on the big lie just so it can get as many people aware of Trump as possible.
You are correct. That is exactly what they're doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Before. You clearly did not read the post by Coal, which says a lot.
He may not have read it. Or maybe not. It's entirely possible he read it, understood it and then rejected it as inconsistent with his "narrative" of what happened.
The latter seems more likely, which I think may have been what you're implying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When you want to fight about narratives, you've lost the argument.
This isn't about narratives. It's about what happened, as opposed to the fiction created by the so-called January 6th committee that you have blindly accepted.
Created: