There was a comedy show in Portugal in the … eighties? Late seventies? where the punchline was “No, I don’t want you to explain it to me. I only want to understand.”

Lately I feel that way about so many things.  Take gender, for instance. I keep getting told that all sorts of things are true that can’t be true at the same time because they are mutually exclusive.

For instance: I’m supposed to believe that gender is a social construct.

Okay, let’s take that and run with it, shall we?

1- Gender is a social construct. Not just at the level of how  males and females behave, but EVERYTHING.

You can become a woman, a man, or indeterminate just by declaring you are one.  That is the entire battle of the pronouns, isn’t it?

So, let’s assume this is absolutely true.

Why bother declaring anything? If gender is a social construct, who cares what you declare? Call yourself human, or a little teapot, and never mind gender at all. Why invent pronouns? Just use what comes to mind.

Please don’t explain. I just want to UNDERSTAND.

2- We live in patriarchy and women are continuously oppressed.

Okay, if gender is a social construct, who the hell is being oppressed? If being a woman is so bad, and we can choose our genders, why would you choose to be a woman?

Please don’t explain. I just want to UNDERSTAND.

3- Women suffer from a “pay gap” which means that women always are paid less than a man.

… Yet people who are “assigned male gender” at birth CHOOSE to be women.  WHY would anyone do that? Why would they CHOOSE to be paid less?

Please don’t explain. I just want to UNDERSTAND.

4- Some people actually have surgery to be their preferred gender/sex.

Why on Earth would you do that, if gender is a social construct? Why go to the expense, pain, potentially irreversible damage, if they’re already whatever gender they say they are, just by declaring it?

Please don’t explain. I just want to UNDERSTAND.

5- People who fall in love with people of the same gender have been historically persecuted and discriminated against.  There was a fight for the ability to marry those they love. In many parts of the world they’re still thrown from roofs or have walls demolished on them.

But if gender is a social construct, who cares who they fall in love with? Couldn’t one of them declare himself/herself the other gender and avoid issues within family? I mean, it’s a lot of work for a pronoun, isn’t it? If that’s the only difference…

Please don’t explain. I just want to UNDERSTAND.

6- Right now people under 18 cannot choose to drink. They cannot choose to marry. They cannot choose to live on their own.  It’s not legal to give them full time jobs.
But they can totally choose to have surgery — irreversible surgery — to alter their gender, even though gender is a social construct, that can be altered by declaring oneself another gender.

How and why does any of this make any sense?

Please don’t explain. I just want to UNDERSTAND.

Don’t explain, because you can explain anything with a self-referent system of sophism that covers up REAL contradictions with bullshit about privilege and oppression, all of it without referent to the outside world.

The truth is that the idea that gender is a mere social construct can’t coexist in a world with any of the other shibboleths the left doesn’t allow us to question.

Which in turn means their only argument is “Shut up, shut up, shut up” — aka “privilege” and telling you you don’t have the right to an opinion.

And yet questioning is what we must do.  And not shut up.

Because their make believe world is not merely a victimless fantasy. It’s a poisonous regime that requires you taint yourself with lies you know are lies, to be allowed to exist.

This same soul-breaking tactic was engaged in by Nazis, Communists and every other dictatorship.  It still is.

Do not sell your soul piecemeal or wholesale by endorsing reality-breaking nonsense.  Spit in big brother’s eye.

There are FOUR lights.

Be not afraid!



258 thoughts on “I Just Want to UNDERSTAND

  1. Why bother declaring anything? If gender is a social construct, who cares what you declare? Call yourself human, or a little teapot, and never mind gender at all. Why invent pronouns? Just use what comes to mind.

    Because he’s been watching (with me) a few Piers Morgan rants about the gender social construct / ‘trans’ and ‘nonbinary’ stuff that has been the focus of the elite in England as opposed to actual real problems, my oldest boy said much the same thing. There’s no point in ‘identity’ because it apparently can be changed at a whim. He thinks the whole concept as rather catastrophically stupid though, because identifying as a golden dragon (as I told him someone at Google apparently occasionally identifies as) doesn’t give you the ability to fly or breathe fire, and there’s no tail…

    (I kind of wish he was a lot older so I could make the kind of knee-jerk quip I had in response to the ‘there’s no tail’ part, but I honestly have no idea how much he and his peers know about that sort of thing. I have, however, insisted that I know what they teach in sex ed, in case they miss important things, or push endless LGBTQ stuff. So far, it’s ridiculously basic.)

    1. IIRC, the specific claim by the individual was that it (using plural to refer to one individual is non-grammatical) was a purple, wingless, dragon-kin.

    2. The true incoherence is that those who claim identity is malleable insist that Culture is racial and intrinsic. This Sarah’s oldest can claim to be female but cannot claim to be non-Latinx nor deny his (her? xis?) inherited privilege and burden of oppressor/oppressed* status.

      If Lizzie Warren identified as Amerindian, is it really our place to deny her social reality? She thought she was of Indian descent, she felt she was of Indian descent, so for all practical purpose she is of Amerindian descent, DNA be damned. The fault is ours for being so rigorously judgmental.

      *lessee, that would be oppressor on White father’s side and oppressed on Latina mother’s side and cheese in the middle?

      1. lessee, that would be oppressor on White father’s side and oppressed on Latina mother’s side and cheese in the middle?

        This why hardcore white supremacist patriarchs only marry non-white women, because then they are doubling up on oppression duties.

        Really makes you wonder about our hostess’s spouse 😉

          1. Beloved Spouse & I have a long-standing agreement: the distaff member agrees to obey any and all discussions husband gives her on the condition husband never issue a directive wife is not inclined to heed.

            We modeled it on the deal we worked out with family cats.

    3. Sometime in the middle of reading your comment, I thought that it would be hilarious to play an identification game where I declare that my gender changes over time based on a set of rules, and that to properly refer to me, you need to follow the rules.

      Then produce a list of ludicrous, yet potentially able to be followed, rules, that go on and on for about 200-500 rules. If you’ve ever read the Myth series by Robert Asprin, think Dragon Poker (or, if you’re a fan of the original Star Trek, think Fizbin). The rules would change based on day of week, day of month, phase of the moon, etc, etc.

      Then demand that if they aren’t going to follow the rules, you won’t speak to them at all.

        1. This is Calvinball, and they’ve wagered the mental stability of Western civilization against their own pride on the outcome of the game. And then they STILL cheat.

      1. Or do something like Syd Barrett’s “Have You Got It Yet”, where you change things up every time they seem to get the hang of it.

  2. The only reasonable response to their chants of “Shut up, Shut Up, SHUT UP!” is, “No.” You don’t have to be vitriolic or loud about it, just refuse. I’ve taken to saying, “I’m from Tennessee, you can’t tell me what to do.” Or as our esteemed David Crockett said in somewhat different circumstances, “You can all go to hell–I’m going to Texas!”

        1. Now my brain is attempting to combine “paying attention” and “paying the danegeld” and can’t make it work, but it should….

          1. And in this context, “paying attention” is less about honoring their crazy wishes and more about battle space awareness: who is a friendly, who is going to break under fire, who is leadership on the other side, etc.

      1. Today resulted in SERIOUS RANTING from me.

        Son texted me to let me know that they were being made to watch a video where they talked about how cows were polluting the world with methane and CO2, and later told me that apparently the farts of a single cow in a year was equivalent to a car that was running nonstop for 70k hourswithout stopping.

        The thing that was heartening was apparently everyone in the class started yelling ‘was the guy who made this vegan?’ and one kid yelled that ‘I am not going vegan to your shit.’

        A fair amount of the people who go to their school aren’t white, I should note; a lot of them immigrants.

        The more annoying thing is they’re using the autistic Greta Thunberg as their example in English class as ‘inspirational speech/public speaker.’


  3. There’s a lot of untreated mental illness in our society right now. Either that, or Alice brought the maniacs back through the looking glass with her.

    1. The illness is heat treated. Makes stronger and more virulent. Meanwhile those not of the cult are the newly ill.

  4. The Progressive Left was built on an obsessive need to NOT be bourgeois. They desperately needed to differentiate themselves from the norm. And so they have embraced a great deal that simply makes no sense (like the ‘art’ of Jackson Pillock (snerk)), just to be seen as ‘different’ from the steaming herd of ‘normies’.

    Sooner or later it was going to drive them into a corner and make them look like the deranged twits that they are. Their control of so much of the means of debate and the simple fact that most of the ‘bourgeois’ simply don’t CARE what stupidity they were getting up to held it together for a long time.

    But they almost HAVE to keep pushing it. And now they have seized on something that people just won’t swallow.

    Not before time.

    1. Speaking of Jackson Pollock, I always thought his canvases looked like a sidewalk under the trees where grackles had been roosting…
      In one of my Luna City books (IIRC), I even described a city sidewalk as having been thoroughly Jackson-Pollocked by large numbers of birds.

      1. I always figured he had promised a big canvas to some important venue, and the day before it had to be delivered, something awful happened…so he sent the studio drop cloth instead.

        1. Okay, time to defend Pollock again.

          Most people think Pollock just randomly slashed paint about. He did not. Everything you see on a Pollock canvas is deliberate. He invested a great deal of time and effort to understanding how paint behaved and mastering the use of height, thickness, etc to get specific flows.

          For those familiar with the term painterliness, I have described Pollock as painterliness without subject. The whole point of Pollock is what he has done with the oil paint and not any subject.

          Does that make what he did “good” art or interesting? Yes and no. I tend to see Pollock as I do some of Cage. Cage did some important things to make other musicians think about their craft. However, that leads to two conclusions about Cage. First, there is no point in repeating what he did (although there is some great performance art around 4’33”, I’ll attach one bit) because once the lesson is there we can all learn from it. Two, anything that follows those lessons really didn’t learn them.

          One difference I do see is there was less of a troll mentality to Pollock and probably mental illness than Cage. Some of Cage is interesting as musician, but a lot of the rest is the original shit posting.

          And now, the promised 4’33”:

            1. Short answer, yes. Two painters of the artsy type in my family (oil, acrylic, watercolor, canvas, 3d, they do it all). One professional artist, grandfather. Discussions of art were/are a thing at family gatherings. See herbn above.

              To put in grunt speak, Pollock’s more the fiddly bits. Pretty art is, to put it in gaming terms, the explosions. Pollock is playing with the code behind that that made it awesome. At least that’s what I got from the convo.

            1. It might be more accurate to say, Pollock’s success is the embodiment of the descent of the Art World into in-jokes and mannerist nonsense.

              He didn’t (initially) demand huge sales prices but he sure as heck didn’t refuse them.

              1. To be fair, if I were playing around doing weird stuff and people started offering me large amounts of money for the results, I don’t know that I’d say no either.

            2. No, because I think that is unfair to Pollock. The in-jokes part doesn’t fit at all.

              Now mannerist, yes. I’d say he was a man obsessed with it, but that is not an inherent problem.

              The problem is lazy people who saw what he did and decided mannerism was easier than actual work and thus missed the point Pollock made.

              I think a better accusation was that Pollock encouraged the development of what Sontag referred to as the specialist artist who is inaccessible to the general public.

          1. OK, I’ve been off a minute on the Cage piece (thought it was 3′ 33″). I have an LP of “HPSCHD” on vinyl, though it hasn’t been played more than once, if memory serves. I took a semester of music theory, and the instructor loved him some atonal music. The one time he played something tonal, I was thrilled. (Terry Riley’s “A Rainbow in Curved Air”) That one is on LP, CD, and MP3. Played it going into town the other day…

            Cage, no. I am *not* an accomplished musician. What he has to teach is on a different planet than I am on.

            1. Well, for example, to me the big lesson of 4’33” for a musician is understanding your canvas or maybe even acknowledging you have one.

              Had people paid attention the sterile sound of digital signal paths, which have led to effects to add analog “warmth” to digital signal chains, would not have surprised anyone.

      2. Didn’t the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie have a quick joke about the inside of Starlord’s ship looking like a Pollack painting under a blacklight?

  5. Beware!
    many of the left tend to consider “understand” as “sympathize” rather than “comprehend” and this causes some troubles…

    “You don’t understand!” (sympathize)
    “I understand perfectly!” (comprehend)

    Somehow, ox survived the idiotic 1970’s…
    And now things are somehow even MORE idiotic.
    The 1970’s had the excuse of being the hangover of the 1960’s (And LSD was legal for much of the 1960’s which explains some of it.)

    1. I’ve always been partial to Homer Simpson’s response to, “You don’t understand!”

      “Just because I don’t care doesn’t mean I don’t understand.”

        1. I’ve had to tell folks that I understand what they’re saying just fine, I just don’t AGREE.

          Have one cousin that is a real pain about stopping listening as soon as he hears what he expects to hear, and he’ll argue with you about it.

          (I will give him credit, after I lost my temper at one point he did actually LISTEN when I explained stuff for the rest of the day. Lasted until he went back to his buddies, /sigh.)

          1. For the rare one I disagree publicly with (most aren’t worth my time), she no longer accuses me of not understanding. The oncet I decided to explain to her in detail that yes, I did understand and could explain her view in a way she completely agreed with, using different words. Then asked, “now what do *I* believe that I disagree with you? Can you tell me that?”

            Took her about a week of trying. Credit to the young lady, she stuck with it. We still do not agree. But at least the fundamental points where we specifically disagree are now clear.

          2. The problem is that too many of them believe that what they push is such a no-brainer that the only reason why any good person would stand against them is because that person doesn’t understand. It’s why we get claims like the one by the Dems a few years ago that the reason why they can’t push their agends through is because the Dems have trouble explaining their positions.

            1. If you accept their initial conditions, it frequently is an obvious conclusion.

              Which gets annoying when you have to point out the water to the bleepin’ fish.

              1. Yep, I find disagreement more often has to do with premises than the flow of logic.

                Marxism makes sense if you can start from a certain form of human nature. The problem is that form of human nature is not found in reality, at least not in humans. Heinlein did point out the huge advantages of communism in species evolved for it in Starship Troopers.

                The failures of Marxism come not from faulty logic in Marx (for the most part), but in faulty assumptions about human nature. The horrors of Marxism come from failing to accept the assumptions are faulty and remake humans to fit those assumptions.

                Oddly, I think the modern world has shown some of the issues with at least Adam Smith’s conception of free market structures (Smithism?), especially he presumption of basic human empathy being a pre-requisite to market functioning. Very large structures so completely separate the ability to have empathy with a person from the ability to act on that empathy that we result in some of the predicted issues.

                My classic example is pretty much anyone answering the phone at a call center. They have very limited authority to deal with real issues. They may empathize, but cannot act. Meanwhile, the person who can act is unreachable and thus incapable of empathy, even if they are the most empathetic person in the company.

                I’m not sure how to solve that, but it is a minor input to my corporate lifetime idea.

            2. In fairness, that’s more of a general human condition that has to be trained out of us. It’s *hard* to put oneself in another’s shoes, and the first step in doing so is to recognize that another is doing what he is doing because he has different experiences.

              1. This.

                Also, don’t fall in to the anthropologist’s trap of being so open minded your brain falls out. Got to have principles firmly in place when you go down the rabbit hole of other people’s perspective. Use other’s vision to sharpen your own.

                These days, the little anthro’s (and likely has grown to infect most of liberal arts. groan.) are likely being taught that holding to your principles is intolerant zealotry. It ain’t that you’re either intolerant or caring. It’s that no, torturing your enemy for as long as possible does not simply “bring honor” and we must respect that, and no, raping virgins does not cure STDs, and no, Marxist *has* been tried too many times to the tune of millions of victims killed, stabbed, shot, hanged, gassed, drowned, buried alive, starved to death, worked to death, and tortured to death. It’s keeping your head about you when all around is nothing but nonsense and craziness.

                Most of y’all have a good sense of self and solid principles. Have to, most of us, growing up odd. Those are good traits to have as an ethnographer, studying other cultures and explaining them to your own. If you don’t keep hold of your own culture, you’ll never be able to translate effectively. If you can’t put yourself in another’s shoes, you’ll never understand their culture well enough to translate effectively, either.

                Understanding, real understanding, is something most human beings regardless of culture crave with a powerful thirst. That ought to tell us how truly rare that is.

            3. Well no, they also think people who don’t agree with them are simply evil and malicious and are literally Nazis.

          1. I always tell my students that before they scream racism or sexism or whatever, they should check to make sure they’re not being an asshole.

    2. Much in the same way that when leftists use the words “acceptance” or “tolerance” they actually mean agreement.

      1. HT Power Line for picking out this bit from AG Barr’s recent speech:

        “In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications….”

        1. And the lefties now want to burn him at the stake impeach him because blasphemy, heresy, Tuesday wrongthink over that speach.

  6. “There are FOUR lights.”
    Picard admits insisting that there are four lights even though at the end he really did only see five lights. I laughed at the thought that the exasperated interrogator (no doubt under pressure to get his quota for the month that was being endangered by this obstinate client) finally just brought in a real fifth light to placate Picard and so he could check the “admits there are 5 lights” box on his report form and move on to the next client. I suspect that at the end he just faked the paperwork.

    1. I bailed out of Star Trek before, looooooooooooooooooong before, that four lights/five lights bit showed up, so THIS is the FIRST I’ve heard of it. Don’t tell me about it; I DON’T CARE.

      1. I heard a little about it, but ST-TNG started shortly before I was in the Earlybird MSEE program (classes 7-9AM, usually 4 days a week). I didn’t have the time to care.

        “Shut up Wesley!”

  7. It’s not my ‘white privilege’ in play that, when I notice that schools are gaslighting kids with this bullshit, I declare it to be child abuse, and child sacrifice for those kids who get singled out for grooming by predators, or get pressured to conform to the unreality so that the schools meet their quota of token (and broken) TMInorities.

    It’s not unrighteous judgment on my part when I observe that parents, however deceived they are by schools and teachers that lie to them shamelessly, do their offspring no favors by incarcerating them into the grooming-indoctrination complex for their childhood and adolescent years.

    My eyes are not clouded when I observe that Wilson reworked the school system to produce compliant drones, that we used to teach Latin in middle school but now have remedial English in college, and that the marxist true believers are in firm control of the Wilsonian system.

    And it won’t be my fault when, years down the line, parents across the US – those now sending their little ones into the lair of the Enemy with neither protection nor arms with which to fight back – wonder when the hearts of their children were stolen by perdition.


    1. Having survived public education, and managed to get an education in spite of it, my children have not been remanded into that system. They are, in spite of the costs involved, attending a private school just a bit up the road from us, and I am incredibly watchful–and willing to pull them and home-school them in a heartbeat.

      1. Hell, I’m not convinced that private school is much better. In the event of my own offspring, I’ll be looking into homeschooling and benign neglect techniques.


        1. That’s why I chose the school I did. They’re doing the same math and spelling and language lessons in 3rd and 4th grades I did in 5th and 6th; they’ll be learning computer programming in middle school; they started Spanish in pre-school, and can understand me when I start in talking angry Spanish under my breath. It’s also a Christian school, so not pushing the nastiness public school pushes.

          1. I’ll admit, I’m considering petitioning the presidency of my own faith to expand the new youth development program to include an optional full-education program. The pre-Wilsonian paradigm was quite effective, so there’s no reason not to take inspiration from it where possible.


            1. That is how my kids’ private school got started: a local church realized that their Sunday School classrooms sat empty over the week, and they conceptualized the school one May, opened it for the little kids that August, and just kept adding grades. There are legacies of legacies, now: grandkids of the first crop of graduates.

              It’s small. It’s intense. It’s a good place, and the kids love it.

          2. Keep in mind that merely being “Christian” is no guard against the evils of secular society, as many Catholic school attendees have discovered. Similarly, I would nay give tuppence for what some of the mainstream Christian “faiths” teach.

            That said, Christian and rigorous is better than secular and “let the kiddies explore reality on their own; imposing skill demands is too stifling of creativity.”

            1. I disagree with much of what he says, but The Blogger Who Shall Not Be Named uses “churchian” for those who have let the rituals and conventions of the church overshadow the Word. That I’ve seen, too much.

        2. Many congregations in the theologically fairly conservative Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS, not to be confused with the politically leftist Evangelical Church in America, ELCA) have run Christian schools for decades–some for well over a century. Most of the teachers in the schools were educated in the LCMS’ university system (Concordia University system, nine campuses, http://www.cus.edu) and have both pedagogical and theological training. (Note, this is not the ELCA’s Concordia College in MN.)
          In observation, I have generally been pleased with the teachers and kids’ educations where I’ve observed them. Instruction is fairly rigorous, and discipline is usually well maintained. Each school is independent, so there is some variation, but most are accredited through the National Lutheran School Accreditation. There are some 500 elementary (K-8 normally) and 60 high schools nationally.
          (Disclosure: my own kids did not attend one; I did for grades 4-8 in the late 60s; my sainted grandfather taught elementary school in one from the 1920s through the 1970s.) Worth checking out if it might meets your needs.

        3. When we were homeschooling the Daughtorial Unit we operated under the assumption that the goal was to produce an autodidact, somebody capable of perceiving an educational lack and correcting it.

          1. *blink*

            I never thought of it that way, but that’s exactly my goal with the kids.

            It’s what my folks did, just because…well, that’s what you do.

            1. I think the technical term for it is “raising adults” as opposed to raising kids.

              Of course, Heinlein demonstrated it in the opening of Have Spacesuit, Will Travel:

              You see, I had this space suit.

              How it happened was this way:

              “Dad,” I said, “I want to go to the Moon.”

              “Certainly,” he answered and looked back at his book. It was Jerome K. Jerome’s Three Men in a Boat, which he must know by heart.

              I said, “Dad, please! I’m serious.”

              This time he closed the book on a finger and said gently, “I said it was all right. Go ahead.”

              “Yes…but how?”

              “Eh?” He looked mildly surprised. “Why, that’s your problem, Clifford.”

        4. It depends on the school. Some church schools lean left, some secular private schools are neutral, some do a great job, some are lousy. Like homeschooling programs – some are hard core on the academics, some spend a lot more time on faith-building. Whatever you choose to do, ask questions, lots of questions, and then make your choice.

      2. Keep in mind that the costs involved are short-term (immediate) and monetary as opposed to the long-term non-monetary costs of public school indoctrination.

        The American public school system employs a Prussian-founded pedagogy designed to produce good factory workers and cannon fodder (not necessarily in that order) and is largely uninterested in independent, self-actualizing entrepreneurs (to select one f’rinstance.)

        Years ago I came across a book by a German sociologist claiming that the Nazi-holocaust was an unavoidable consequence of that Pedagogy. I found the thesis credible, although I did no more than skim the book (and was unable to find it again on subsequent visits.)

        While I note others advising that private school is no guarantor of better education, I will observe the education could hardly be worse.

        1. The original intent was good factory workers and cannon fodder, but they’ve moved on.
          Now it is all about upselling suckers into the Higher Education scam (with the massive debt that entails), and extending the callow ignorance of youth as long as possible so they’ll vote Democrat.

          1. Yes, well … the market for factory workers who simply follow instructions has disappeared in America … as has the supply of factory bosses capable of communicating clear instructions.

            And the military no longer has much need for cannon fodder in a time where the Fourth Estate acts as Fifth Column and glories in any and all casualties as evidence the USA is wrong to defend our interests.

            The need for gullible fools seems greater than ever.

        2. I’m fairly certain the educational choices were a big part of Imperial Japan going so far round the bend.

        3. “The American public school system employs a Prussian-founded pedagogy designed to produce good factory workers and cannon fodder (not necessarily in that order) and is largely uninterested in independent, self-actualizing entrepreneurs (to select one f’rinstance.)”

          That’s the stereotype. Is it accurate and complete?

          I would suggest to you that there is a lot more to it than just the supposed Prussian rigidity and “indoctrination”, which is mostly an artifact of the propaganda created by their enemies. Most of what people think of as a “Prussian system” is mainly a figment of those propagandist’s imagination. The reality is that the Prussian and later German educational/military systems were nothing like the cartoon stereotypes we’ve made them out to be.

          To quote the Wiki, which has a decent summary of it all:

          “Drill and serfdom
          Early Prussian reformers took major steps to abandon both serfdom and the line formation as early as 1807 and introduced mission-type tactics in the Prussian military in the same year. The latter enlarged freedom in execution of overall military strategies and had a major influence in the German and Prussian industrial culture, which profited from the Prussian reformers’ introduction of greater economic freedom. The mission-type concept, which was kept by later German armed forces, required a high level of understanding, literacy (and intense training and education) at all levels and actively invited involvement and independent decision making by the lower ranks. Its intense interaction with the Prussian education system has led to the proverbial statement, “The battles of Königgrätz (1866) and Sedan (1870) have been decided by the Prussian primary teacher”.”

          The German system of education and tactics were not what many imagine. You want a solid example of why that is not true, then look at Finland, the history of the Jääkäriliike, and observe just how much “Prussian” heritage you find in the Finnish education system.

          I’m afraid that the things you and others are decrying in the American educational “system”, if it can be dignified with such a term, are actually things much more of our own making. Dewey, Mann, and others were far more influential and destructive of things educational in this country than we want to admit–And, a lot of our issues of today merely represent the carrying out of their ideas to the ridiculous extreme.

          Just like with the Nazi methodologies of eugenics and “racial hygiene”, many of the more destructive Nazi educational ideas actually came from the US and went back across the Atlantic. Ever notice the similarities between what we used to do for the Pledge of Allegiance, the so-called “Bellamy Salute”, and the Nazi “Hitlergruß”? Ya think that’s a coincidental happy little accident?

          Somewhere, I’ve read a little book describing what a real “Prussian” education looked like, described by an American who actually went through their system back around the period of German unification. What’s in there is nothing like what you’d expect to see, given what everyone thinks about them–Lots of Socratic questioning, and lots of problem-solving practicum.

          People really need to stop and think carefully about this line of BS about the supposed “Prussian rigidity” in all things relating to their ideas–Does that even make sense, given the explosion in German productivity and industry of the 19th Century? Does anyone suppose that they managed to do as well as they did in both world wars because they lacked low-level flexibility and were too rigid? Does anyone actually know the reality, the history? How the Germans were the ones to actually develop modern infantry tactics, having been given their seed from a captured paper written by an ignored and disrespected French captain…?

          Not to mention the way they managed to outproduce their competitors on the world market. Does the fairy-tale about their inflexibility and rigid approach to things match up with that, or is it because we lazily parrot what the propagandists told us about the Germans during both world wars?

          No, you want to blame someone for the issues we have with our educational system, the Prussians are entirely the wrong people to lay it on. They had their flaws, but the supposed lock-step rigidity and inability to adapt aren’t among them. Those of our own people who copied them generally made up their own BS about things, and called it “Prussian” to give it an air of credibility.

          Hell, the Finns are the number-one argument against that–You can still see the influence of the Prussian Jagertruppen in the Finnish armed forces, transmitted by the Jääkäriliike who were trained by the Prussian Jäger during WWI.

          1. I wonder how much of our current military doctrine has it’s roots in German practice and doctrine?

            1. Both too much, and not enough.

              Too much in the sense that there’s all too much slavish copying of the supposed forms of things, and too little attention paid to the spirit of it all.

              It’s a lot like the way we went from copying French military uniform fashion after the Civil War to aping the Germans, Pickelhaube included. Germans won the Franco-Prussian War decisively, and all of a sudden, copying them was the flavor of the day. Said copying did not extend, however, to actually doing more than aping the form of it all. The cultural things that enabled the German victory received little or no attention, not the least of which were the low-level leadership enablers. The Germans were well ahead of us in terms of empowering leadership below the officer level, and remained so until we finally started paying lip service to it after WWI. In the German system, for example, NCO rank was permanent, and a commander could not demote men on a whim. US? LOL… You moved units, you went from being a Master Sergeant to a private, with no guarantee that your next commander would even make you a corporal.

              Germany had a very deep field to chose from, with their professional army leadership. The German NCO corps had a hell of a lot more status than anything in the French, English, or US systems–You usually went from retirement as a senior NCO straight into some schoolteacher or post office position, and it was not necessarily into a low-status job in either field. I remember reading about a guy who was a regimental sergeant-major equivalent, and he wound up as a postmaster of some decent-sized town in Bavaria.

              You get into it, and I actually have to blame the French for a lot of our military and educational cultural issues. Much of what the popular imagination decries as “Germanic” in source is actually more in tune with the French les grandes écoles mentality where the prestige of the school has more to do with how well your ideas are taken up rather than the actual, y’know, merit of them all.

            2. A surprising amount is Soviet in origin. The Red Army put a LOT of thought into tactics and operational art, and we copied the best of it.

          2. My apologies, Kirk. Clearly the German sociologist I had read knew nothing about the origins of his nation’s school system, or was probably lying to curry favour with Western readers.

            Probably education reformer John T. Gatto was talking from between his buttocks when I saw him do his presentation on the origins of the theories adapted by Dewey, Mann and others when they “developed” our modern American system.

            Or possibly you’ve misunderstood the post-Napoleonic development of Prussian education and commingled it with their military doctrine. You might note that I said nothing about their system reinforcing the traits you cite, that the presumption of “the supposed lock-step rigidity and inability to adapt” was your own insertion.

            1. Likely some here are unfamiliar with John Taylor Gatto and his critique of Industrial Schooling. A former “Teacher of the Year” his books include Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992) and The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling* (2001).

              Per Wikipedia:
              Main thesis
              Gatto asserts the following regarding what school does to children in Dumbing Us Down:

              It confuses the students. It presents an incoherent ensemble of information that the child needs to memorize to stay in school. Apart from the tests and trials, this programming is similar to the television; it fills almost all the “free” time of children. One sees and hears something, only to forget it again.

              It teaches them to accept their class affiliation.

              It makes them indifferent.

              It makes them emotionally dependent.

              It makes them intellectually dependent.

              It teaches them a kind of self-confidence that requires constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem).

              It makes it clear to them that they cannot hide, because they are always supervised.

              Gatto traces the work of Dewey, William Torrey Harris**, Ellwood P. Cubberley and others back to University of Leipzig professor Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt, physician, physiologist, philosopher, and professor, known today as one of the founders of modern psychology.

              Using anecdotes gathered from thirty years of teaching, alongside documentation, Gatto presents his view of modern compulsion schooling as opposed to genuine education, describing a “conflict between systems which offer physical safety and certainty at the cost of suppressing free will, and those which offer liberty at the price of constant risk”. Using the Kindle “look in” option I recommend attention to p. 107, 188, 194 and skimming based on search terms for the educators listed above. In 1992 Gatto was Secretary of Education in the Libertarian Party Shadow Cabinet which might relate to the book’s forward having been written by Ron Paul.

              **From Wiki, two notable quotes:
              “Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.”

              And in that same book, The Philosophy of Education (1906), he writes:

              “The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places … It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. School should develop the power to withdraw from the external world.”

              1. What does bringing Gatto into this discussion do but to prove my point that you’re mistaking things we’ve done to ourselves with some fantasy straw-man of “Prussian-style education”?

                You call it “Prussian”, and that’s what I’m objecting to, because that’s not at all what the actual Prussian system or educational ideals were actually like, or what that system produced in terms of real-world results.

                And, I’m not even going to go into the fact that I’ve said nothing at all about Gatto being wrong in his ideas or outlooks on education here in the US.

                You would do well to go back and do some actual historical reading/research on what was actually going on in Prussia during the period it was reaching ascendancy in Germany. Your distorted outlook blinds you from the real reasons that they were as successful as they were, which had nothing at all to do with this “factory worker and cannon fodder” idea. They simply couldn’t afford the losses, on any of their battlefields, and the notion that they wanted a system that produced such things is ridiculous on the face of it. Prussia never had the numbers or the economy to make such a thing work, and they knew that. They had to be better than everyone else, smarter, faster, and more adaptable. That’s what they wanted out of their educational system and their army, and that’s what they generally got.

                Unfortunately, they sort of failed to make the extrapolation out that the national leadership had to be just as good as what was underpinning it all.

                1. You apparently confuse dismissing assertions with refuting them. You will pardon me if I consider your authority less demonstrated than Mr. Gatto’s and thus deem your rejection of him as lacking factual basis. Nor has anything in your responses thus far, based on they are on misrepresentation of my points, struck me as credible.

                  I suggest we agree to disagree. You reject my sources and provide none of your own, thus there is nothing to discuss.

            2. “Factory workers and cannon fodder” were your words, not mine. You can’t have it both ways; either the Prussian system produced mindless drones, or they didn’t. The Germans had massive success with their industrialization and with their military, neither of which argue for a system that solely produced unthinking and inflexible “cannon fodder”.

              You’re parroting the propaganda, and not stopping to ask if any of it is actually valid. While a caricature can show you some truths, highlighting them, it’s always a mistake to extend that out to making it an overall characterization.

              As well, you’re conflating political indoctrination with educational success, thinking that the one invalidates the other. Obviously, given the success that the Prussian system produces in terms of results, there must be something in what they were doing that produced that success. Is that necessarily connected to the indoctrination that they were inculcating, or is it an entirely separate issue? I would submit that while the issues intertwine, that they are separate things.

              Finland, for example? Deeply Prussian education and military systems, at their roots: Little of the Prussian vice of political indoctrination going on there, so I would suggest that the characterization of “factory worker/cannon fodder making machine” is not at all a valid one.

              It’s like a lot of things that “everyone knows”, including the supposed Prussian watchword of “Kadavergehorsam” or “cadaver obedience”. The reality is that’s more a term borrowed from the Jesuits, and used by German philosophers to criticize and ridicule the Jesuit attitudes and beliefs. From that use, it was taken by others as an actual viewpoint of the German mind, when it was generally more used by the Germans as their own stereotype of Jesuit mindset at about the time they were banning the Jesuits.

              German Wiki on the term:

              “The German Kompositum (composite word) Kadavergehorsam came only in the debates of the Kulturkampf of the 1870s on the 1872 ban on the Order in the German Reich, as an anti-Jesuit catchphrase, which quickly became widespread and soon received as Germanism in other European languages Since then, it has often been used in transmitted form to characterize the mentality of Prussian and German military and society.”

              The actual espoused Prussian virtue of obedience was always framed more as “Seid gehorsam, doch nicht ohne Freimut” (“Be obedient, but not without frankness”)

              The point of which is to say that the “conventional wisdom” is often wrong. I bought into a lot of what the conventional wisdom about all this says, and then I started asking myself how the hell it was that such a rigid and inflexible system as the stereotypical Prussian one we all think of managed to hand us and most of the other Allies their asses on so many occasions. What I found was that the more you look into it, the less accurate the caricature becomes.

              It’s like the thing with Napoleon’s height: Everyone “knows” he was short, while the reality is that he was actually somewhat above average in height for his time and place. What you’re doing is the equivalent of trying to analyze Napoleon’s conduct and personality based on the idea that he suffered from “short man’s syndrome”, when the actual fact is that it would have been damn strange for him to have had such a thing…

              1. “Factory workers and cannon fodder” are not mindless drones, That is your equivalency, not mine.

                The rest of your response is comparably off-target and irrelevant.

                I cited authorities whom you have off-handedly dismissed, not refuted. You have provided no comparable authoritative sources in response. The conflating of political indoctrination with educational success was your argument, leading me to conclude you neither actually read or understood me.

                You infer much that I did not say, then flail at those straw soldiers without responding to my actual assertions. As you have not addressed the points I raised I perceive no need to respond to yours.

                1. “Factory workers and cannon fodder” are not mindless drones, That is your equivalency, not mine.

                  Are you serious? LOL… RES, I think you have issues enough to put the Saturday Evening Post to shame. As well, you’re profoundly obtuse. There is nothing in your original post that even begins to support the assertion you’re making here. It’s all “Ree, ree, ree… Prussian bad…”, and you’re not even presenting the slightest refutation to the point that I’m making, which is that they were not what you’re so dismissively characterizing them as.

                  Face it–You made a ridiculously facile statement based on purest stereotype, got called on it, and are now shifting the goalposts to assert that I’m the one in the wrong. Laughable.

                  Go do some reading on what the Prussian state actually did, and what they were striving for–Prussia took a lousy hand of cards, and parlayed it into dominance over the German nation. They didn’t do that by being “largely uninterested in independent, self-actualizing entrepreneurs”, either. Or, do I need to run down the laundry list of their many and sundry successes down the years since the “Prussian system” came into being?

                  You’re being so painfully obtuse that it’s not even funny. The crap that’s wrong with our system here in the US isn’t the fault of the Prussian source, it’s because of the distorted idiots who copied what they thought was going on there.

                  If you were right, then the Finns should be having equally obvious problems with their educational system, should they not?

                  1. Kirk, have you provided a single fact supporting your assertions? Can you support them with citation or are you of the opinion that your personal authority is sufficient?

                    Name-calling is a poor substitute for fact-based argument.

        4. I couldn’t begin to say how well we copied the Prussians, but Woodrow Wilson’s quote on how he wanted public education to go makes it as clear as LBJ’s quote on how he wanted welfare to go:

          “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”

          The Great Brain series and the Little House on the Prairie series give some idea of how rigorous education was for the commoners at the end of the 19th century. That’s what Wilson was determined to get rid of, and his successors in tyranny did a thorough job.

          (Screwtape Proposes a Toast is CS Lewis’ take on how badly American education had deteriorated after half a century of the Wilsonian educational paradigm.)


      1. I am fairly sure I related this story before… we’d moved into a new (to us) place, and not after had gotten a little computer… which just would NOT behave for any length of time. Finally, Pa plugged a meter into the wall and we watched the voltage dip to 90 and peak at 130 or so. Eventually this was traced to a faulty ground at the outside meter box on a pole… power company was called. “We’ll send someone out… eventually.” Well, THAT didn’t sit well at all. “Alright, I’ll the meter in upside down and run it backwards until someone gets here.” *CLICK*

        He did try it (for a few seconds), and the mechanical meters COULD be plugged in thus, and DID run thus. And 20 or so minutes later the power company was fixing the ground like they damn well ought.

  8. As Anthony Daniels said, the point isn’t for you to understand; the point is for you to NOT do so. The point isn’t to convince you that this is all a coherent worldview that makes sense and is true. The point is to make you repeat obvious lies in order to make you part of your own oppression.

    1. It’s designed to turn people into the loyal worshippers of The Party and Big Brother, and what the left demands is no different than O’Brien telling Winston Smith 2+2=5 whenever the Party requires it. They are taking Orwellian doublethink and call it “critical studies” so that they can brainwash entire generations into compliance so that they will believe and obey anything their totalitarian masters decree. THIS is what the left wants to achieve.

      1. And like the Soviet machine designed to cut apples into four pieces, it doesn’t actually work as intended.
        You don’t get the New Soviet man who happily doublethinks what the Party tells him is true. You instead get cynics who casually break the law whenever they can get away with it. You get a show of outward compliance instead of obedience, and most of that is exaggerated and made up.

        1. Well yes, but that doesn’t change the left’s intent as to what they are doing nor their never ending pursuit of it. In the meantime, the consequences tend to be widespread suffering and mass graves.

          1. The joke goes “What’s as big as a house, burns 20 litres of fuel every hour, puts out a shit ton of smoke and noise, and cuts an apple into 3 pieces?
            A Soviet machine made to cut apples into 4 pieces.”
            A fitting metaphor for Leftist intentions, and Leftist results.

            1. I loved that the makers of Chernobyl put that joke in the show — in the mouth of a coal mining foreman to boot!

  9. First, may your Natal Day be felicitous, and frabjous, and in all ways satisfactory.

    3- Women suffer from a “pay gap” which means that women always are paid less than a man.

    Then WHY would anybody ever hire a man when they could pay a woman less to do the same job? Companies staffed by women would out-compete those employing men, driving them out of business. Men would be excluded from the business world, left to wander the streets in abject poverty and despair.

    Like most leftist bullshit, that turd does not survive even casual contact with reality.
    Dukhat: “When someone does a foolish thing, you should say it is a foolish thing. They may still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be.”

    1. Shoe-on-head has the full rebuttal to that, but some of the main points are: “Men are more willing to take riskier, dirtier jobs that most women won’t do,” “Men tend to work longer hours,” and “Men take less time off for caretaker duties at home.” Control for those kinds of factors and women actually make more than men.

      Then there’s the uncomfortable reality that the more woke a woman is, the more of a nightmare she tends to be as a coworker or boss.


      1. I love her version of the easy button which she recorded with the rebuttal to just press when needed.

        The amount of commentary in doing that is worth 10,000 words.

          1. Oh, I disagree with her plenty but I love he willingness to call out what she finds foolish with a decent degree of whit.

            Even the one or two times I’ve arguably been part of the target of her barbs they have drawn smiles.

    2. Then WHY would anybody ever hire a man when they could pay a woman less to do the same job?

      Actually this one is easy to explain from their point of view: The companies don’t want to have women in the first place, but are forced to so they just get away with the lower wages.

      That is their true assertion. It’s just that they focus on the (alleged) lower wages as (alleged) evidence. And because that is what the propaganda focuses on that is what everybody talks about. But there is no actual contradiction at this level of the argument.

      1. These are the same people that think nothing of running businesses at a loss to virtue signal like that pay what you want deli years ago. They figure patriarchy does the same

  10. Is it just me, or are the ones proclaiming that gender is a social construct the most rabid in enforcing gendered dress and behavior? Despite the insistence that it’s a social construct, and one should be able to act/dress how they please without being judged?

    1. Exactly. These are the ones who see a little boy who likes to nurture (ie, play with baby dolls, though he may also like “boy” stuff), or who thinks glitter is fun and declare he is actually a girl. They look at a little girl who likes to climb trees and play in the dirt–ie, the classic “tomboy”–and declare that she must in fact be male.

      They are the worst enforcers of those godawful gender stereotypes I have ever seen. It’s no different than that stereotype of the “manly” father who is convinced that because his son likes “girly” things he MUST be gay. They’re just coming at it from the other direction–and are worse. At least the father who was fretting over his son’s assumed sexual preferences (::eyeroll::) isn’t likely to be looking to straight up drug his child into sterility and disease and mutilate their body…

      1. My son, the little wolf cub who really likes girls, likes a few girly things. My daughter, the girliest little girl who ever lived, likes a few boy things. I tell both that it’s okay for boys to like girl things, and for girls to like boy things. And that a boy liking girl things doesn’t make him any less a boy; a girl liking girl things doesn’t make her any less a girl.

        I want my kids to be happy and healthy. Not neurotic and self absorbed; not brainwashed into thinking they’re something they’re not; not trans-trenders because it’s popular.

    2. Holly, yes. Like the “woke” teacher who sent a little girl home in tears. The girl was a tomboy. The teacher kept pressuring the girl that she was “really” trans. The parents were . . . peeved.

      1. I’m not sure “peeved” would have quite covered it (even with the hesitation in front of it, lol) had it been my parents. “Blood on the walls” might have done the trick. >:D

        1. Mine, too.
          My daughter still recalls the ruckus that ensued after the 6th grade teacher insisted that the Rock of Gibraltar was solid, and my daughter insisted that no – it wasn’t! There were galleries and tunnels hollowed out inside them!
          The kicker being – that we had actually visited Gibraltar and taken a tour of the galleries.
          Kid – The Rock of Gibraltar isn’t solid!
          Teacher – Yes it is!
          Kid – Isn’t!!
          Teacher – go to principal’s office! And your mother will be called!
          Principal – Your daughter insists that the Rock of Gibraltar is solid!
          Me – It isn’t – bits of it are hollowed out.
          Principal – …..
          Yeah, the Kid was in a very strict Catholic school, very shortly after that conversation. Pity. I loved that assignment, but the local schools were not a good fit for the Kid.

          1. We had a similar experience in Second grade when Daughtorial Unit contradicted teacher’s assertion that “Snakes don’t have spines.”

            For one thing, teacher did not appreciate fact Daughtorial Unit knew what “vertebrate” meant (although she did have trouble pronouncing it.) More importantly, teacher did not appreciate being corrected in her classroom.

            Parent/Principal meeting followed. Politeness ensued. No tempers were lost.

            Upshot: we were still at that school the next year, the Second Grade teacher was not.

          2. Gotta give the nuns credit. I was an ‘orrible child, incorrigible, and mostly awful to teach. But they made darned sure when I disagreed I had to look up the answer my own self and bloody well prove I was right.

            And they were sneaky enough to tell me wrong things to go and look up, just to see if I caught on. Sneaky, sneaky nuns.

          3. think i’ve told before here- my 9th grade science teacher (Earth Science, but Astronomy was a non-priority and wasn’t even required on the state standards…) insisted that I was wrong and out sun was too massive to go nova.

          4. My youngest brother (17 yrs younger than I) got in trouble in elementary school because he “asked too many questions.” This, combined with a teacher telling him NOT TO TELL HIS PARENTS after another student punched him (he told them) resulted in him requesting to be homeschooled from 3rd grade through 8th grade. He only went back to public school because–at that time (though they changed it the following year)–homeschooled kids in our state were not allowed to participate in extracurricular team-stuff, and he wanted to join speech and debate, and also he discovered girls.

    3. Yes.

      The real danger of transactivists are tom boys and the boys usually called sissies. In that the TERFs are right. “Gender is a social construct” can not co-exist with “I was born gay.”

      I know I’m a broken record, but the real issues some children have could be solved a lot easier, and better, by turning all this energy into making a sissy socially acceptable and, if it isn’t as acceptable as it was when I was a young ‘um the same for tom boys.

      Instead, we’re treating 5-9 year olds experimenting with the world as harbingers of life long considerations. I’ve seen speculation that it is a form of Munchausen by Proxy. That seems reasonable, but I think some are just immoral (amoral?) status seekers using their kids as props. I’ve certainly seen that in less drastic circumstances.

      I sure as hell don’t want to damn the mentally ill by letting the evil pretend to be them.

      And a final note on that dress, why do the “transgirls” little boys in 1-4th grade who make the news look like drag queens and not girls in the 1-4th grade. Pre-puberty passing is easy, so if you are serious just dress them appropriately and keep your damn mouth shut. That parents make them up like a trashy drag show tells me what the truth really is.

      And for the “but little girls experiment with makeup” crowd:

      1. Not at school everyday.
      2. That experimentation does not look like a drag performer…for one, little girls are not that expert at it.

      1. They look like drag queens because the intended result is catamites for the ‘pizza’ crowd, rather than ‘being a girl’. See Moira Greyland and the hell she went through: Her parents’ ilk have been trying to get this normalized and systemazied for decades, if not centuries.

      2. Real life support for your argument:

        My kids are ten and under; happened to be at the dentist the other day, and a nice older man (with a ten year old grandson, not there) was looking over the horde and asked “so, three girls and two boys?” “Four girls, two boys, we’ve got one more girl in the back.”

        The two eldest were pretty obvious, but everyone under six? Not so much, unless it’s warm enough to cheese the whole dressing the kids thing by letting the girls pull a t-shirt dress on.

        (…I take the fifth.)

        1. Oh, and in our case it’s obvious because the Princess has hair nearly to her behind, and I had to find yoga pants because she WILL wear a dress no matter what.

          The boy looks like he’s wishing I could find him some candy cigarettes to roll in his shirt sleeve.

      3. I NEVER experimented with makeup till about 12. It was the earliest anyone did. And no one wore it to school before 14, even in the US. Maybe that has changed but not among our friends’ daughters.

  11. Someone reposted a comment from a left-wing feminist (is there any other flavor of feminist? Asking for a friend) group.

    Paraphrased (not going to try to find the post):

    “Can you just see at the general election debate when Warren announces her pronouns and the camera pans to Trump? The normies will see that he’s making the same face they’re making, and he’ll be reelected in a landslide!”

    Yet another thing that I like about where we live; I can’t recall running across anybody pushing this line of indeterminate gender crap. OTOH, I don’t know any locals of school age at the moment, nor do I go where such people are likely to hang out. There’s a Starbucks in town, but the Dutch Bros. (and Human Bean) kiosks serve better coffee and get the customers.

    Yeah, we’re living a sheltered life right now. We are in Oregon, so it may not last.

    1. I really think the whole pronoun thing is made fun of more than it actually occurs. Yes, I’ve had someone tell me their pronouns without me asking, and I’ve been asked what my pronouns are a couple times. But that’s been a couple times in the YEARS since that all started.

      As for flavors of feminist, yes. There are Conservative feminists. They just concentrate on problems that actually exist and they work to make things better rather than screech and demand that a man fix it for them.

      1. A college professor friend was told he really needed to put his pronouns in his email signature.
        By his dean. He declined.
        In TX, and not Austin.

      2. The distinguishing characteristic of conservative feminists is that they don’t hate men and don’t blame all their problems on men.

        My preferred pronouns are “Lord” and “Your Lordship.”

        My preferred ranking amateur nouns are Thee and thou.

        I do not require a possessive pronoun (his, hers, theirs) because all property is mine, making the possessive pronoun superfluous.

        1. I don’t have pronouns ( and DEFINITELY, no CONnouns); I have adjectives: bad, badder, baddest, you better have your medical coverage up to date, and… where’s your burial plot.

      3. Oh, trust me, it occurs in certain circles.

        I’ve been in a place where I was pressured about not having preferred pronouns. I refrained from saying “ji, jim, and jis and don’t you dare pronoun the last one wrong” (pronounced jizz, yes intentionally).

        1. “Do you really want to give someone with a malicious sense of humor an excuse to coerce speech from you? Are you sure?”

        2. Yep. I’ve had a number of applications that ask. Cons keep the ribbons at reg, etc. See it at work occasionally but not locally I think.

        3. “Master*. HOWEVER, I am smart enough to not demand nor even expect anyone to use it.”

          * Substitute ANY over-the-top title/address. ‘Majesty’ seems more than a mere bit excessive for ox.

          1. “the one who correctly answers all social questions/of the greatest of all men, and every man is greater than every woman/belonging to the one that is the proper arbitrator of all property disputes” is a tad more grandiose and obnoxious than I think really reflects me. I do have that handy ‘identify as a monster’ thing which expands to “no one’s values are every one’s values, and I’m discarding some avenues of coercion early by being cheerfully willing to be seen as a monster according to your values”. I’ve not been able to find a formulation that abuses ‘identify as monster’, fits my desire to troll, and fits my desire not to advertise.

            Obviously, trolling wrt ‘homophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ is more suited for this thread and are weak or entirely absent, and the ‘misogyny’ trolling is so strong that if I expressed it regularly I would a) hurt those of the few people I really care about who are women b) internalize it and confuse my thinking.

            It was a mildly sad day I realized I would have to give of the dream of full time trolling on twitter a pass. Not only am I not able to afford even a part time trolling career, spending much time only trolling poisons my personality. Furthermore, I probably waste a lot of time trying to write on social media, and even reading twitter a little may be a waste.

            If someone really cares who I am, they can get to know me over a long series of interactions. Life is too short to want to deal with summarizing myself in 80 characters or less to everyone who demands a short summary but is not willing to deal with more. Pronoun accommodation is coerced speech, more political will to power than anything that would actually help someone with serious problems. At best a bandage with no pressure on a gushing artery, at worst a neck tourniquet.

      4. Unless you are someplace like NYC where use of the “wrong” pronoun can get you a $250,000 fine and jail time, under the pretext of violating the city’s law against discrimination.

      5. I haven’t had anyone tell me their pronouns yet, but if it happens my response will be along the lines of, “OK, you have special words to refer to you. I too have a special word with which to refer to people like you. It’s ‘schnee’. I will use it for you from now on.”

        For those not acquainted with the German language, it means “snow”. As in snowflake. And on a slightly related note, it’s occurred to me that the proper response to “OK, boomer” is “OK, snowflake”.

      6. Actually, I knew a sort-of conservative feminist, but I’ve noticed they are now as rare as surviving witnesses against certain former Arkansans. IYKWIMAITYD

    2. You can announce any pronouns you want. When I’m using pronouns, I’m not talking TO you, I’m talking ABOUT you. And nobody gets to control how or what I say about someone; as long as it’s true, and they properly understand the message I’m trying to communicate to them.

      And that is the real dirty side of this whole transgender movement, it’s designed to make it harder to communicate effectively and truthfully.

      1. I’m amused when people ask my title, I say ‘Miss,” and they twitch. And kept twitching, because of course, no one ever uses that, it’s demeaning, and yet here I am. Smiling my politely evil little kitty grin.

  12. I’ve noticed the dissonance in the gender narrative especially in the medical field. The same people who say we are all the same are now saying that the medication has not been fully tested on females (organic) and that females many times have a different reaction to the meds than biological males. So what is it? Are we different genders or are we social constructs? It makes me laugh and I want to explode some one’s brain.

    1. Thalidomide was a perfectly harmless sedative, except for females in rare circumstances…

      [a quick check on the web shows it’s back on the market, interestingly enough…]

          1. I tell others in my medical groups that one med will work for one person and not the other. Of course anyone with Wegener’s Granulomatoisis is an outlier in the first place.

          2. Not to mention non-common side effects with certain medications. Metformin is supposed to cause diarrhea, not constipation, and prednisolone isn’t supposed to cause intraocular eye pressure to spike. My body disagrees.

            My appendicitis presentation was unusual. Shouldn’t have admitted to the doctor that Eldest Brother had it two weeks prior, so they spent a 2-3 hours going through the Munchausen’s checklist. (Not that close to Eldest, but I had the job of taking him to the ER, so I knew the patient-side symptoms. I’ve had more fun Christmas visits with family than that year… )

            1. So-called “paradoxical” effects are more common than many might believe.

              I don’t have them, as far as I know (perhaps a very good lack of things tried, due to lack of need of textbook effect) BUT I do know that I seem to metabolize codeine so slowly it might as well be a sugar pill. Learned that one the painful way.

              1. I’m the opposite. Drugs hit me HARD, fast, and last longer than for most. I have absolutely no tolerance to anything I’ve ever been given, or alcohol.

                When I first started having problems with my back, before learned chiropractor, not muscle relaxants, was the solution, doctor was prescribing a muscle relaxant. Don’t remember the exact name now, but must have been an opiate derivative. The third time I wanted doctor went to prescribe it, he was reluctant, for fear of addiction. My response? “Wait a minute. I take essentially 4 weeks of prescriptions and use them over more than 18 months, and you’re afraid of addiction?” First round, yes was in full throttle of locked back, half of prescribed dose knocked me out (still in pain, but hey, I was OUT). Had pills left over once back finally unlocked. Probably took 6 months to run through the rest (took on first twinge). First refill, took over a year to use up. After that the refills lasted well past the printed expiration date. Once learned of correct method to unlock back, turned in remaining pills (most of the last prescription) … oh, about 5 years past printed expiration date.

    2. THEN it gets really freaky. There are XXs and XYs, but then there are XXYs, XYYs, and even XXYYs! Some studies say as much as 2% of the population falls outside the “norm” of XX or XY. 2% doesn’t sound like much, but given the population that is millions of people. And all of that is besides the “everyone is the same, gender is a social construct” stuff.

      As far as the “woke” stuff goes, I follow a “Live and let live” philosophy, and that extends to kids. When kids (especially my own) say “I’m a this” or “I’m a that.” I encourage them to slow down and grow up before they label themselves. Hell when I was a kid, I thought I was going to be a stunt-man/bounty hunter with lots of tattoos when I grew up. Nope! None of that ended up happening. So why not relax and learn to understand yourself before sticking a label on (they are harder to pry off that one might think) and/or doing something irreversible. I’ve known a few people who didn’t wait, and now absolutely regret it. I’ve never met anyone who (seriously) regretted waiting to know themselves better.

        1. Everything I’ve read about this has gone out of it’s way to say there wasn’t a noticeable correlation found between XXY, XYY, and/or XXYY and transgender or homosexuality.

          1. There’s probably not. But the percentage of the population who have had surgery, hormone treatments, and pass as the opposite sex is vanishingly smaller than the media suggest. Just calling yourself female when you have a Y chromosome doesn’t make you clinically trans, if you use the pre-2000 medical definitions.

        2. It’s not the intersexed that tend to be the holy warriors but the ones that have more mental causes.

      1. A society that tries to model its organizing structures to map to the 2% while making them non-functional for the 98% will not last. That is what the are trying to do.

        Having a stock set of adjustments of the structure for the 98% when some of the 2% are in the group is very different.

        In one world, pronouns are a weapon to bash a majority that outnumbers you at will and claim moral superiority. In the other they are a way to be polite and understanding to someone who, for reasons beyond their control. doesn’t fit in +/- 7 deviations (Chebyshev’s inequality tells us a minimum of (1-(1/7^2))*100% ~ 98% is within 7 std).

        1. I think destroying the society is the entire point, particularly familial relationships. Can’t have any loyalty to family or friends stand in the way of devotion to The Almighty State.

          1. Florida Man, high on meth and asking his associates to hold onto his beer while he demonstrates a hitherto untried feat of agility, demonstrates more actual forethought into the long term consequences of his actions than any roomful of Marxist Revolutionaries.

      2. I agree. I wanted to be a veterinarian, a doctor, a school teacher, and then I thought boys had more fun — all before I was twelve. I ended up being an electronics tech, a woman, a wife, and eventually a writer.

      3. Two percent?

        That…does not seem very probable at all. Not in the least because that would mean that one in fifty has a rather major genetic issue.

        Which makes me suspect that the numbers used one of the much looser definitions of ‘intersex’ and related terms– things like moobs, or hormone imballances. I can’t remember which one it is, but there’s a lady-problem that boils down to too much testosterone that is relatively common and if you are looking at “sex hormones, malfunctions of” would totally fit.

        Note, in researching I found out that there are sources that say FOUR PERCENT of the population is ‘intersex.’

        ….it’s from John Money. The bastard who bullied parents into maiming their little boy into a girl after a surgical accident, and then lied about the results for profit. (RIP, David Reimer.)

        Support for the reaction:
        In the absence of better internationally-accepted data, Intersex Human Rights Australia cites a systematic review of medical literature in the American Journal of Human Biology by Melanie Blackless, Anne Fausto-Sterling and others showing intersex to be around 1.7% of all live births.
        This estimate relates to any “individual who deviates from the Platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels” and thus it seeks to encapsulate the entire population of people who are stigmatised – or risk stigmatisation – due to innate sex characteristics.


        So that would let them add boys whose testies don’t drop, etc, to the percentage. Much more probable.

        Kinda useless for the chromisone thing, though. /sad

        1. The 2% claim I saw was only about these specific genetic animalities. If you take into consideration that that 2% estimate is purely people with XXY, XYY, and XXYY chromosomes, and that quite often (if the term quite often can be used along with “2%”) people with these anomalies only find out about them because of genetic tests or odd things found during medical procedures (like the 70 year old father of 4 having a surgery, and the doctors finding that he also had ovaries).

          Again, I want to point out that nothing I’ve seen or read has suggested a link between this and the current gender insanity. (in fact, there seems to be no correlation at all).

          1. Even if you assume the sample being tilted by including mostly those where we already have a reason to expect have one of the coding errors, that’s a crazy high rate. That’s roughly how common redheads are!

            Looks like there have been broader samples to study XYY, and they got about one in a thousand boys:

            That, obviously, wouldn’t catch the XXY or XXYY, but I seem to remember doubling the Xs is related to bad outcomes because it’s so much bigger.

            I wonder if the DNA testing companies do any kind of study of this stuff?

            1. That’s one of their favorite tumblr things. Come up with a percentage, however calculated, and compare it to redheads.

              1. A more accurate comparison would be the frequency of cleft palate, which has a high/low of 75/5.5 per 10k births, depending on the population.

          2. This is so cool, there’s even a support website for it:

            Looks like the XXY and the XYY are about one in a thousand, and are by far the most common– one broad study of guys in jail got that rate. (They were testing the old claim that XYY are more violent, didn’t find it supported.)

              1. Like the guy who put himself up as a face to try to save boys who have the same genetic coding problem that he did?

                That is pretty gutsy, especially since he also pointed out the couple-three problems he has.

          3. No. It’s not 2%. not in any reputable medical text, unless you include things like “presents as gender indecisive at birth, but is normal by six months.” (Believe it or not this is a HIGH percentage, mostly because of weird rate of development/premature, etc.)
            Gender non binary BIOLOGICALLY as adult is… something like 0.001%.
            Anyone who says otherwise is pulling from ass.
            Now, keep in mind we don’t test everyone’s chromosomes. We recently found an XY who is a normal, functional FEMALE. G-d alone knows how.
            BUT that doesn’t take away from the fact that she’s a normal, functional fertile female.
            There’s a lot of unknown unknowns, but the majority of humans are still OVERWHELMINGLY one or the other.

            1. Yes, a vast majority are clearly one of the other, but the fact that there is a provable XY, who is a normal fertile female just proves a point I’ve been maligned for most of my life for making, but I still insist upon.


              My point being, of course, that Science at it’s very core is about questioning EVERYTHING. Even those things we think we know, because there is always more to learn. Settled science my ass.

              (says the guy who just wishes he was smart enough to be a scientist.)

  13. I really don’t care how people identify. It’s when they have their thugs jam a gun up my nose and demand I celebrate their insanity I object. Have no doubt at all – public school is backed by lethal force and the accommodation to home school is one vote of your leftist legislature from going away.

  14. I confess to wanting to understand why and how the poor sad remnants of gendered nouns in English has become this… fiasco. Intellectually I can see how poorly educated folk have managed to make such a ridiculous mistake, but I really don’t get it.

    I mean, people, animals if you know their sex, ships (by convention) and a few other noun-y things get a gender. Everything else is grammatically neuter.

    Why does something so trivial cause such a fuss? It should be established fact that within 24 hours of a new PC term being proclaimed, someone will be using it as an insult (usually it takes a lot less time than that, but let’s be generous here). When I can call someone “mate” and mean anything from “best friend” to “you little piece of excrement – but calling you that insults excrement because it can be used as fertilizer where you would poison my garden” with nothing but a change of tone, what do the words matter?

    Sensible adults know this and rise above stupid. Clearly these alleged people are nothing but overgrown toddlers throwing tantrums that would shame real toddlers into good behavior.

      1. Like the less that’s at stake, the more vicious the power plays?

        I actually subscribe to – or try to subscribe to – the notion that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and that it’s a bad idea to assume conspiracy because the people involved aren’t intelligent enough to run one.

    1. One thing that amuses me about the Mandarin language and the current mess is that while spoken Mandarin uses the same sound for both male and female third person pronouns, the written symbols used are different.

      Further, while English uses a neuter for third person plural, Mandarin just tosses a “plural” syllable into the mix. And mixed sex groups are written using the male symbol. So no copping out with “they” as is done in English.

    2. “Mentally retarded” was once the ‘kinder, gentler’ way of putting things…

      …which gradeschool kids saw through INSTANTLY: “Retard!”

      And the next New, Improved term will suffer the same fate, with perhaps increased speed.

      Hang on… is the whole language of falseness really a very clever Illuminati-level trick to get time-travel or such invented? Faster than instant means….

  15. I encountered one of these types who said that we are all identical except for the plumbing. This was in the context of a discussion about reproduction, which is specifically about the plumbing. !!??. The very same person later turned around and said that I had no right to express an opinion about a certain subject because I didn’t have a uterus. ??!! (I wanted to ask if that’s where her opinions came from and where she kept them.)
    This is not a rational set of beliefs, and there is no point in trying to reason with a person displaying them. The only logic involved here is a persistent desire for quarrel and confrontation; and the only workable solution I know of is to disengage.
    It’s a slightly different matter when they try to make public policy based on such delusions. “The courts have declared that inequality of height is unconstitutional. As a first step in elimininating this inequality, everyone taller than five feet needs to lose some height. Do you want yours taken from the top, bottom, or middle?”

    1. The only logic involved here is a persistent desire for quarrel and confrontation submission.”

      Fixed that for you.

  16. I no longer wish to understand. In fact, I mostly just want folk to STOP trying to make me understand. I do NOT need to understand, their lives will not improve because of my understanding. Just STFU and get on with doing your job. Them cows don’t milk themselves, that [feces] won’t shovel itself, and my understanding of you won’t put food oon the table.

    1. Bingo!

      Life got much easier for me when I realized there are entire categories of things I simply don’t care about.

      1. Granted I finally quit my last job because things were getting so far out of whack to be perceived to be physically unsafe (if not directly affected but potential collateral damage). But, well before that point, the chaos had people asking how I could stand what was happening around me. My response was I’d realized that I was always 2 weeks notice out of there … and reality check, less than 24 hours, as I generally had more than 2 weeks of paid time off banked. Since my exit stratagem did not rely on work references, I had all the freedom needed.

        The minute I hit my 60’s? I realized my “give a damn is broken, or empty, take your pick.” Yet my husband is frequently frustrated with my empathic feelings. Yes I can be empathic, I just don’t feel the need to act, or feel that my feelings, or what we could do to help, is the correct answer for the person or people in question.

        STRONGLY believe that taking from someone else (super wealthy) to give to multiple others who have done nothing to earn it, is wrong on too many levels to count. Especially since I fully realize that most pay more taxes than our entire net worth … if they are (legally) paying less percentage, then I want to know their tax accountants. Always been a proponent of simple tax forms, a fixed percentage of all earnings (regardless of source). To the screams of “that’s not fair!!!!”, my response is “It’s math!!!! 10% of 1k is ALWAYS less than 10% of 1mil. Every single time.”

        1. Some want to ride.
          Ox pull.
          Ox okay to pull those who pulled long time.
          Ox okay pull those who cannot pull.
          Ox want to kick those who could pull, but refuse. They BE refuse.
          Ox slow, sure.
          But that not mean ox damn fool.

  17. For those who have transgenderism, I get it. It’s in their heads, it’s “real” to them, just as schizophrenic hallucinations are real to those who have that problem. But a failure to recognize reality is a mental illness; and any professional who claims differently is engaged in gross malpractice. Non-professionals who claim differently are deluded and misinformed at best, or of the worst malicious creatures in nature. For those using this on children that’s out and out child abuse.

    It’s a real problem in my house. Child 2 has it, grade school system supported it, college reinforced it, wife believes in it. I’m the only one in the family who believes a male is someone with XY chromosomes and born with properly functioning penis and testicles. And that might end up being the deal breaker. /sigh

    1. Urk. You have my deepest sympathies.

      Technically there are complications, but they’re not exactly common, and I don’t remember all the possible complications that can happen. Just the isolated community where boys aren’t “born”, they’re discovered when puberty hits and everything finally descends (because a story like that sticks where raw data tends not to).

      Those who have said complications should be encouraged to find a medium that they can live with and which doesn’t give them too much grief when they’re interacting with the rest of the world. Nobody should be getting gender changing surgery until they are adult and all the assorted hormonal chaos of growing up has settled. You can’t undo that kind of thing.

      This whole mess of glamorizing confused sexuality is causing so much damage to people, and inevitably the people who’ll be hurt most by it will be the ones who have the biggest complications with their personal mix of chromosomes and hormones.

  18. The fundamental problem here is that “Social Construct” does not mean what these ill-educated twits believe it does. They have seized on half an idea from Sophomore Sociology and tortured it into a badly warped image of itself, just as they previously corrupted Anthropology’s concept of Ethnocentrism.

    At its core, the Sociologist’s thesis is that, for Sociology purposes, ALL REALITY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. By which they mean that Reality is irrelevant, for their study what matters is how any society under their microscope imagines reality to be. It is our understanding of reality (or gender) that is the focus of Sociological study, with the actuality of it being outside their discipline.

    Thus it does not matter whether Society A dresses boys in blue and girls in pink while Society B does it the other way ’round and Society C dresses one in green and the other in red. The critical component is how that society understands those clothing choices.

    Pull that out of the lab and you get the kind of nonsense Sarah decries; it cannot be understood because it is a sophisticated self-referential tool for studying, as useful outside the classroom as a neurosurgeon’s scalpel is for carving the Thanksgiving goose*.

    *a goose which, for purposes of our discussion, identifies as a guinea fowl.

      1. Sociologists are not invested in the study of Reality (that’s a job for physicists) — they are involved in the study of how people interact with Reality. For their purposes it simply does not matter what Reality might be.

        OTOH, for people interacting with Reality it does somewhat seem to matter how well their conception of Reality matches the underlying facts.

        Yet another instance of Progressives getting a process backasswards.

        1. Eh, they probably have to cope a little with whether their interactions are real or not real. It does matter whether you think that a hedgehog or an adder has a venomous bite.

  19. Right now that off grid cabin way in the north woods is looking better and better.

    Then all I’d have to declare is if you bug me, I’ll cut a bitch.

    1. There was a time when house hunting I declared I wanted one with sufficient property to post: Beyond This Point If I Can Hear You I Can Shoot You.”

      I never got around to determining how many rifles I would want zeroed for range …

      Emily Sackett Talon (Ride the Dark Trail) is one of my heroes. For those who’ve not read it, she had the range from her porch to her gate zeroed in perfectly, and could shoot a fly off a horse’s ear without disturbing the horse. (Hyperbole employed for colorful effect: no actual flies or horses were shot for purposes of this description.)

      1. Places like that exist. Out of the way, quiet, and such things. Even as curmudgeonly and cantankerous as I’ve got, I like my little house in town. Yes, I’ve neighbors. No, don’t like them all. But they leave me alone, and I them, by and large. That’s good enough. Long as it stays that way, we’re good.

        1. Due to A Certain Neighbor, I am increasingly inclined to some yard with a machete, or a nice, beeeeeeg labrys… if only to send the message, “NO!”

          1. Heh. I’ve a brush axe, think a short arm glaive, or hooked assegai, that I use to cut back dog rose and poison ivy on one side of the property. Those neighbors have been very respectful of late. *chuckle* Of course, the occupants of that house tend to trade out every few months.

            1. One of those “minotaur things” despite the claims of being more women’s weapon… but consider what which women fought, and how… and any weapon a woman could and would use, is one to be respected indeed.

              Also: the thing at hand (or hoof) beats the thing elsewhere.

              Just like how a .44 Magnum is great… but the .380 in your holster…

      2. Well, I may or may not have some acquaintances living out west that have Range Cards made up for their properties, complete with elevation adjustments for particular tools. At least one may have rocks along the long driveway to the main road spaced at regular intervals, each painted a different color, only on the side facing the house.

  20. On a wholly unrelated topic: does this amaze anybody?

    ‘Bro-1ike’: Schiff aide was White House friend of a11eged whist1eb1ower Eric Ciarame11a
    A11eged Ukraine whist1eb1ower Eric Ciarame11a was c1ose friends at the White House with an officia1 who is now a key aide to Adam Schiff, the House Inte11igence Committee chairman 1eading the Democratic push to impeach President Trump.

    Sean Misko, 37, was the director for the Gu1f States at the Nationa1 Security Counci1 from 2015 unti1 the first ha1f of 2018. Ciarame11a, 33, a career CIA ana1yst, was Ukraine director on the NSC from at 1east 2016 unti1 the summer of 2017. Both officia1s arrived during the Obama administration and 1eft during the Trump administration.


    Before joining the NSC, Misko worked in the Obama administration as a member of the secretary of state’s po1icy p1anning staff for deputy chief of staff Jake Su11ivan, who became Hi11ary C1inton’s senior foreign po1icy adviser during her 2016 presidentia1 campaign.

    Ciarame11a and Misko were described to the Washington Examiner as workp1ace friends who had simi1ar1y antagonistic attitudes toward the Trump administration and were witnessed by a former Nationa1 Security Counci1 officia1, 1ike Ciarame11a, a nonpo1itica1 appointee, to frequent1y be around one another.

    “My understanding was that they were friend1y with one another,” said the former officia1, who was senior to Ciarame11a. “They wou1d wa1k around the ha11s. Get 1unch together and stuff 1ike that.” He described them as “very much cut from the same c1oth,” and their friendship as “bro-1ike.”

    The former officia1 described Ciarame11a as “very hosti1e” toward him when they first met, and he asked the CIA officer about the type of competitive strategies he had put in p1ace to compete with the Russians. “And he 1ooked at me 1ike, ‘What are you ta1king about? We don’t do that stuff here. We don’t take on our adversaries here. We invite think tanks here to ta1k about issues.’”

    According to the former officia1, Trump’s first nationa1 security adviser Gen. Michae1 F1ynn, who was fired by Trump after 24 days, wanted to “actua11y take the fight to our enemies and have rea1 strategies, and it was such a contrast because whatever the he11 the Obama NSC was doing, they were not taking on our adversaries.”

    He said, “There was this weird cu1tura1 hosti1ity to me asking him, ‘You know, are you guys doing your job here?’ He had a 1ot of arrogance about him,” adding that Ciarame11a behaved 1ike he had protection at the NSC, so he cou1d be insubordinate to a more senior officia1.

    “He had a 1ot of questions that were not about po1icy or strategy, but 1ike, ‘Who are you? Where are you coming from? Are you here as a po1itica1 appointee? Are you detai1?’ These are things you ask if you want to be ab1e to get dirt on somebody or you want to be ab1e to figure out how powerfu1 this person is. He was c1ear1y an operator, not a person that’s there to do the job.”

    Neither Ciarame11a nor a spokesman for Schiff responded to Washington Examiner requests for comment.

    1. I’m shocked, shocked, to find a whiff of a possible hint of collusion and collaboration going on in that establishment. Shocked, I say.

  21. It’s simple-it’s a gaslight tactic.

    If these hunks of wasted sperm (I can barely call them “people”) make you agree to terms of the world that are opposite of reality, they can make you agree to other things. Things that make no sense at all, and are wrong to any standard of logic is now completely reasonable.

    For you to agree-knowingly!-about something that is completely wrong about the world and how it works…everything else follows.

    1. Also, of course, forcing you to agree to lies underscores their power — agreeing to the truth gives the truth a share.

  22. Two simple steps to painlessly eliminate the gender wage gap:

    1. Convince low income women to identify as men.
    2. Convince high income men to identify as women.

    (Fake) Problem solved!

  23. Just found this in an old post by Derek Lowe (blog In The Pipeline, hosted by, I think, Nature magazine):

    “I believe that David Foster Wallace defined a harmful addiction as something that offered itself as the solution to the problems that it was causing …”

    Derek was mourning the death of his brother, but this is eerily like certain political philosophies.

    Hope this isn’t lost in the sea of posts above.

  24. a) Is what is touted as a solution actually a solution? Only if the problem is correctly diagnosed a significant amount of the time, and the treatment has efficacy.

    b) we can be fairly confident that those targeted for treatment now are well above the number of intersexed that theory claims the treatment is effective for. The ‘hates self, so wants to deny symbols of self identity’ mode in particular is interesting. Apparently, lots of boys are being raised to hate themselves because they will grow to manhood and cannot avoid being evil. If that is combining with ‘addressing trans inclusion’ to make up even a large fraction of increase in self reporting as trans, we are going to see some seriously bad fall out.

    c) Normal boyish playground socialization was not for me. So there was a time I hung with the girls some. I am a straight man, not trans to any degree. When I estimate what current society might have tried to tell me, and how correct it would have been, my estimates for the outcomes of modern society’s suggestions are not very positive. Very much in territory where ‘if we are going to have socialized medicine, than transexuals are candidates for “terminal, in pain, making them comfortable before they pass”‘, and we would be much better off being actively ‘transphobic’. I am seriously weird and have never really fit in. That absolutely does not make me LGBT.

    1. So there was a time I hung with the girls some.

      I can think of nothing more likely to bend one toward homosexuality as in-depth familiarity with the opposite sex.

      I am seriously weird and have never really fit in. That absolutely does not make me LGBT.

      But it probably makes you Queer*, Wasted Even, Really Totally, Yep.

      *Queer: odd, unusual, out of the ordinary

  25. Remember: ask the average Lefty and we’re the dangerous whackos.

    Police say woman stabbed another for wearing fur boots
    by Zachary Halaschak | November 21, 2019 04:56 PM
    An Ohio woman has been charged with attempted murder after she allegedly stabbed another woman for wearing fur.

    Meredith Lowell, 35, was arrested Wednesday in Cleveland Heights after police say she was motivated to brutally assault a woman for wearing what she thought was animal fur.

    The victim had taken children she was babysitting to church for choir practice when Lowell attacked her, stabbing her with a kitchen knife twice to her arm and abdomen, according to the police report. A bystander at the scene restrained Lowell after the assault and handed her over to the police when they arrived.

    The woman she attacked wasn’t even wearing real fur boots but rather faux fur, which is not made from animals. Lowell doesn’t attend the church where the incident occurred but does live nearby.

    This was not the first time Lowell has acted out against those who wear fur. In 2012, she was charged after attempting to hire a hit man on Facebook to kill someone wearing fur garments.

    In addition to attempted murder, Lowell was also slapped with a felonious assault charge. A judge set her bond at $1 million when she appeared in court via video on Thursday.

    The victim was taken to the hospital and is expected to recover. Police praised those at the church for acting quickly and detaining Lowell while helping the victim. Lowell’s next court date is set for Nov. 25.

  26. And how– I had no idea that the Salvation Army was involved with Planned Parenthood (appears to be a rather flimsy connection in as much as they’re claimed to have not sufficiently avoided being involved with PP– reading between the lines, I think they may do some contraceptive promotion stuff; not even on the Catholic Charities level involvement) or how ready to accept a spin folks were.

    Seriously, the whole thing is just ANNOYING– hasn’t CFA gotten the slightest hint of enough background to be given the benefit of the doubt for long enough to respond at all?

    I don’t even like their food and the insane amount of jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle is getting to me!

    It seriously smells like “well, you don’t give us money? FINE! we’ll destroy your good name!”

    1. Hm, that was supposed to be to Herb up above on it getting ugly.

      Guess WP is being WP, so I won’t bother with the links I was going to add– but if you go to Lifesite news you can find the following stories:

      May 2019:
      Chick-fil-A charity arm defends ‘higher calling’ of partnering with so-called ‘anti-LGBT’ groups
      Sept 2019:
      Chick-fil-A sales have doubled since LGBT boycotts began: report
      November 2019:
      Chick-fil-A pulls support from Christian groups branded by LGBT lobby ‘anti-gay’

      Notably, one of the other stories mentions that the LGBTQzit groups tried to declare victory at least twice before, with “CFA is cutting back on donations” stories.

    2. Part of the problem, I think, is that they have been turned into an icon as “the only friendly to us company.” It’s dumb, but people are seeing it as a betrayal.

Comments are closed.