Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   Totally Off Topic (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Liberals gone wild (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244946)

Whimbrel 04-21-2017 12:25 PM

Liberals gone wild
 
I have often wondered what fuels the alt-right, or ultra right's absolute loathing of liberals to the extent that liberals are seen as more harmful than beneficial in modern America. However, it is now clear to me that there is a generational component that I had overlooked before. I'm not saying conservatives don't do the same things, but somewhere along the way, fighting for civil rights has become a close minded, fanatical march of censorship and victimization.

My oldest kid heads off to college this fall. However, college has really changed since I went 30 years ago. Consider this article--

https://www.city-journal.org/html/ge...-up-15109.html

First off, I hope a lot more people read that today, and I think they will since David Brooks links to it in his column (conservative?) in the New York Times today. When I was in school there was still an idea that you tried to learn about all ideas and then decide what you agree with. Now it seems that people decide what they agree with and then protest everybody else. That is the most short sided and idiotic approach to making progress on social issues I have ever heard. In some ways, I feel I have a greater understanding for why certain people see this type of liberal as an intellectual hazard. How the fuck can somebody claim to be fighting for rights and then try to censor free speech?

What the hell happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

The sad part of all of this is that the partisanship and mistrust has gotten so bad that it is hard enough to build bridges even when you have an opportunity to hear somebody from different views speak. But to actively try to silence them?? Holy fuck! It's absolute madness. Isn't college supposed to be the ideal of intellectual freedom, an arena of ideas? It seems to me that somewhere along the way the culture of identity commodified the institution of learning as a platform for self aggrandizement and esteemed as worthless the idea that we should be challenging ourselves with new and different ideas without judgment. If this is what college is now, I don't want my kid to go.

Just to restate what should be obvious, liberals used to be about giving the little guy and the oppressed a voice and opposing tax cuts for the rich. But it is a sick perversion of those goals to decide to try to silence everyone else.

PacerDawn 04-21-2017 02:35 PM

If you saw Hitler, would you punch him? To the left, everyone on the right is basically Hitler or some form of Nazi. Either you support Black Lives Matter, or you are a fascist, it's just that black and white (no pun intended).

I'm sure these people think they are doing good, but in reality they are making other people feel unsafe. Am I thinking the right thoughts? Will I be assaulted as a fascist if I think the wrong thing? Will they march down my street destroying property in "protest"?

These clashes with AntiFa (Anti-Fascists) are causing destruction and injury. Just look at Berkeley a few days ago. All the while local colleges and authorities refuse to get involved.

And here is the irony: By their actions, these people are becoming what they hate. Seriously, if you look at r/Anarchy, you would swear it was a fascist board. Think like us, or we will punish you! They don't want government involved in their lives, yet they are practically begging for the national government to declare martial law and/or police action since the local government won't. If this keeps up, the government is going to do it. And the thing is, a LOT of people are going to welcome it with open arms. Because now big government is no longer the enemy, the anarchists are.

Watch soon for police and/or army on every street corner. And watch for people to accept it.

Good job, guys.


VenomUSMC 04-21-2017 03:42 PM

In my opinion, Brooks is only a conservative in the sense that he claims he is. I certainly don't think he is. In my anecdotal experience, it isn't a generational thing; I've run into many people whom refuse to hear anything outside of their own opinion that are older than me.

College, at least when I attended a few years ago, did not have much in the way of intellectual freedom overall. I did have a few classes that allowed it, but the biases were quite clear. Those professors were certainly not millennials, unlike me.

I think the problem is that the Left, as a generalization, has moved well beyond the little guy, and moved into this weird era in which anything is subjective when they want it to be. Look at the transgender deal; I don't care if a person is transgender, but the idea that I must pretend that a an individual with XY chromosomes and a penis is a woman is more than silly. It's far easier to refute an argument by yelling "bigot!" than actually refuting it, which I've run into this with several Lefties that range from their mid-40s to mid-50s that claim to be moderates.

I largely blame the media, for their horrible reporting. Yet, it's ultimately the fault of the people carrying out such a movement.

Whimbrel 04-21-2017 04:07 PM

First, for PacerDawn, I'm not going to change your mind even if I am a counterexample to what you already believe, but I think that the overgeneralizations like "To the left, everyone on the right is basically Hitler or some form of Nazi. Either you support Black Lives Matter, or you are a fascist, it's just that black and white" are part of the problem with people drifting towards acting and thinking more stupidly on both sides.

Venom- I agree about Brooks being quasi conservative, and lately he has said some things that defy any categorization aside from bizarre, which is why I put the "?" there. Yes, he and the Times seem to be pretending he is the conservative columnist, but I think they need to do better and find somebody who is articulate, intelligent, and actually a conservative. I'm not sure why they can't do that, but my guess is that the right has better paying gigs for any conservative who can put two sentences together these days. I don't really think Douthat does much better at the Times.

In terms of being transgender, I don't really agree with you that the issue boils down to what one person is or isn't willing to pretend, judge, determine etc about somebody else's gender identity but rather it is about whether we feel that gender identity is up to the individual to determine or society. I'd say that liberals are quick to side with the individual on this point, and there certainly is stigma for transgender people, so perhaps they are the little guy in this scenario. Having said that, where we get into problems is when either or both sides refuse to listen, acknowledge, compromise, accommodate each other specifically when there are differences of opinion. Quick example. I don't know how many school districts my state has, but let's say hypothetically it is 25. When Obama made that statement about all schools having to accommodate transgender students, our Governor- a republican in a red state- made a big deal of opposing it and saying no way. However, 24 of 25 school districts were already in compliance. There was no controversy, there was no need for mandates or protests or any of that. The local communities had already addressed it just to address a problem, but once it was seen as a liberal versus conservative, it became an issue fro protest, offence, resistance, etc. It is absolutely idiotic. I feel like there are many liberals right now who are acting Trump crazy. They just want to be opposing and protesting and resisting the hell out of everything without solving a single problem. I'm absolutely frustrated.

SpectralThundr 04-21-2017 04:38 PM

No offense Whimbel but you prove Pacer's point, science and biology be damned, it's all about the feels. Instead of classifying what it actually is, a mental illness. You've proven time and again you completely buy in to group think, and scientific fact only matters when it supports the progressive hive mind. It's the same kind of "science" that has to fudge temperature readings and ignores the earth has naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles to push the progressive agenda. You're part of the problem buddy boy.

PacerDawn 04-21-2017 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2480850)
First, for PacerDawn, I'm not going to change your mind even if I am a counterexample to what you already believe, but I think that the overgeneralizations like "To the left, everyone on the right is basically Hitler or some form of Nazi. Either you support Black Lives Matter, or you are a fascist, it's just that black and white" are part of the problem with people drifting towards acting and thinking more stupidly on both sides.

You are correct in that it is not everybody on the left, but it does tend to be more on the left these days as you have pointed out. I don't see the right shutting down liberal speakers. There is no middle ground these days. Either we think the group think, or we are on the outside. If you are a counterexample, then I would imagine you are a pariah in your own party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2480850)
In terms of being transgender, I don't really agree with you that the issue boils down to what one person is or isn't willing to pretend, judge, determine etc about somebody else's gender identity but rather it is about whether we feel that gender identity is up to the individual to determine or society.

But it is about that. That is why there are schools drafting rules where not referring to someone by their preferred pronouns is considered harassment. If someone identified as "Mary Queen Of Scotts", would you be OK with that and always call them "Sire" and "Your Majesty", which would be their preferred pronouns? Or would you think they were crazy?

Welcome to our world with Transgenders. A man CANNOT be a woman, any more than someone can be Mary Queen of Scotts. Yet here we are being told (in the face of "science") that yes they can. It's surreal...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2480850)
Having said that, where we get into problems is when either or both sides refuse to listen, acknowledge, compromise, accommodate each other specifically when there are differences of opinion.

I have seen MUCH more lack of compromise come from the left. Like I said, no middle ground here. My middle ground would be that they can call themselves what they want (I won't try and force them otherwise), and I don't have to participate in their fantasy (they won't try and force me otherwise). Yet, that isn't what is happening, is it? Transgenders get to use my bathrooms and I have to participate in their fantasy or else I am a bigot. That's not compromise by any stretch of the imagination.

Terran 04-21-2017 10:00 PM

Modern liberalism is a mental disorder that threatens everything that makes America unique and free. The progressive liberal left is no better than the folks in Salem and their 'trials.' They are fundamentalists, fascists, intolerant echo-chamber anti-science idiots who are literally a spreading cancer in society, emanating out of our academies, news media, Hollywood, high tech, and government and NGO groups enforcing group-think and conformity with their standards. They are diseased in their ideology and their attempts to control others.

Whimbrel 04-22-2017 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2480852)
No offense Whimbel but you prove Pacer's point, science and biology be damned, it's all about the feels. Instead of classifying what it actually is, a mental illness. You've proven time and again you completely buy in to group think, and scientific fact only matters when it supports the progressive hive mind. It's the same kind of "science" that has to fudge temperature readings and ignores the earth has naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles to push the progressive agenda. You're part of the problem buddy boy.

I think it is significant that someone on this forum can write "all x think y" and nobody will call them on it or care. I write that I'm x and don't think y, and your response is not only that I have proven the initial point, but that I am the one espousing group think? Isn't group think when you lose the ability to make objective or critical assessments due to some other factor, like partisanship, or liberal or conservative bias? I would say that your comments make no sense in this regard in that they seem to exemplify what you attribute to me and ignore what was actually expressed.

I'm really not sure what science has to do with this, but since you brought it up, I think your broad generalizations about climate change and mental illness are poorly informed. Gender is far more that an organ, a chromosome, or a feeling. You can decide to define gender however you wish, and I stipulate that good arguments could be made for almost any definition, but to somehow pretend that it is a unidimensional issue seems naive at best. I don't feel that you understand much about the science of global climate change if you think that it does not involve natural temperature fluctuations. One thing I notice is that climate change denial is often focused almost exclusively on temperature and for some reason ignores the chemical changes in our atmosphere. I'm not sure why that is, but I think it has to do with the moronic idea that if global warming exists there would not be cold anywhere on earth at any time. That may sound like an idiotic oversimplification, but it has been used by climate change deniers, instantly demonstrating that they haven't learned much about the science they are judging.

Either way, again, I'm not looking to turn a conservative into a liberal, but some of the things people write here seem at least as close minded as the crazy reactionary shit that took place at the campus in that essay I linked. Look at Terran's post just above this. Nobody sees that it sounds a little extremist and crazy? Which of the adjectives he uses do describe the fanatical, mindless extremism of liberals do not apply equally to his own writing about them? Any? Some? I'm not asking anybody to take my side here, but pretend to respect objectivity or condemn hypocrisy a little?

Whimbrel 04-22-2017 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacerDawn (Post 2480870)
... I would imagine you are a pariah in your own party.


Welcome to our world with Transgenders. A man CANNOT be a woman, any more than someone can be Mary Queen of Scotts. Yet here we are being told (in the face of "science") that yes they can. It's surreal...

A. I'm not a pariah, but I feel that I am in disagreement with almost everyone. When the Democrats wanted to force McConnell on the SC confirmation, I think only one senator agreed with me that A, it would be hypocritical to bitch and moan about the senate not confirming Obama's pick and then try every trick in the book to block Gorsuch, and B. that it would be a mistake and pointless to trigger a rules change for this nomination. Almost all the other Democratic Senators wanted to go full steam ahead with this manic protest, oppose, resist bullshit. It drives me crazy.

B. Again, whatever the "science" is that you guys are talking about generally and specifically, I guess you will need to spell it out for me because I have absolutely no idea what science you are referring to. The science of transgender identity? Mental Illness? Gender? Public restroom social science? Whichever it is, do you really think - objectively- that the science is unanimously clear on this issue in some way? If so, that would be surprising, since science is rarely unanimous about social issues.

I'm not really sure I understand your take on this. You feel like you are being forced to participate in somebody else's fantasy about something if they use the same restroom you do in public? Do you feel like you should be able to tell other people where to use the bathroom? What fantasy are you participating in and what exactly is happening to you about it?

At one point, people who opposed gay marriage were complaining that their rights to tell other people who they could marry were being overruled. I understand that if somebody was deranged enough to base their whole life on wanting to control somebody else's most personal and intimate decisions that this would seem like a huge deprivation. But for the average person who had no such expectation, this surely was less significant of a loss than if they lost the ability to choose who they married themselves.

Personally, I don't really concern myself with the gender of people using the restroom. I have been in public restrooms that are for both genders, families, one gender, etc. Even with that being my personal stance, is there a problem with providing gender neutral public restrooms for transgender people? Would that still force you into something that you don't like?

Terran 04-22-2017 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2480922)
Nobody sees that it sounds a little extremist and crazy?

There's nothing crazy about pointing out the fascist, fundamentalist, controlling threat emanating from the 'progressive' (LOL@that bit of euphemistic, propagandistic labeling!) left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2480926)
Whichever it is, do you really think - objectively- that the science is unanimously clear on this issue in some way?

In fact, yes. Humans are biologically XX or XY. The less than one tenth of one percent of people who are not are carrying a congenital birth defect.

You are a lunatic or a moron for not recognizing this basic reality, but you belong to a party of lunatics and morons, so...see my sig. :D

VenomUSMC 04-23-2017 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2480850)
Venom- I agree about Brooks being quasi conservative, and lately he has said some things that defy any categorization aside from bizarre, which is why I put the "?" there. Yes, he and the Times seem to be pretending he is the conservative columnist, but I think they need to do better and find somebody who is articulate, intelligent, and actually a conservative. I'm not sure why they can't do that, but my guess is that the right has better paying gigs for any conservative who can put two sentences together these days. I don't really think Douthat does much better at the Times.

I think it's as simple as the NYT being uninterested in having an actual conservative. It seems to work well when they want to paint anyone who isn't in agreement with them as an extremist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2480850)
In terms of being transgender, I don't really agree with you that the issue boils down to what one person is or isn't willing to pretend, judge, determine etc about somebody else's gender identity but rather it is about whether we feel that gender identity is up to the individual to determine or society. I'd say that liberals are quick to side with the individual on this point, and there certainly is stigma for transgender people, so perhaps they are the little guy in this scenario. Having said that, where we get into problems is when either or both sides refuse to listen, acknowledge, compromise, accommodate each other specifically when there are differences of opinion. Quick example. I don't know how many school districts my state has, but let's say hypothetically it is 25. When Obama made that statement about all schools having to accommodate transgender students, our Governor- a republican in a red state- made a big deal of opposing it and saying no way. However, 24 of 25 school districts were already in compliance. There was no controversy, there was no need for mandates or protests or any of that. The local communities had already addressed it just to address a problem, but once it was seen as a liberal versus conservative, it became an issue fro protest, offence, resistance, etc. It is absolutely idiotic. I feel like there are many liberals right now who are acting Trump crazy. They just want to be opposing and protesting and resisting the hell out of everything without solving a single problem. I'm absolutely frustrated.

Ultimately, transgenderism is about pretending. The science behind the chromosomes which determine this is far more "settled" than other "settled science" that the Left will not question -- Global Warming Climate Change. Speaking of Climate Change, which there was just a bit march for scientific "facts," many of the people chanting seemed unaware that a perceived consensus, which is usually established by faulty claims, doesn't prove anything in science beyond there being a perceived consensus. Many of those marchers appeared to think that consensus equals fact, when that goes against the very thing they claimed to be marching for.

The transgender piece from Obama did lead to a response, and I could certainly see that appearing to be along party lines. However, without knowing the details of the particular response, was it over transgenders, federal overreach, or a combination? Lets say that 24 of the 25 school districts were already in compliance, if that compliance means that any person, regardless of their chromosomal makeup, can simply declare that they're a woman or a man and the institution must pretend that is true, then that's forcing people to pretend through policy.

Is Caitlin Jenner a man or a woman? Does changing one's name make them a woman? Does getting breast implants (I don't know if he did or not) convert someone? Or, perhaps, getting one's penis lopped off makes them a woman (which, again, I don't know if he did or not)? How is saying Caitlin Jenner is a woman not pretending? I know liberals have been trying to divorce the idea that gender has any objective basis, but that requires trying to change - while insisting it's the same - meaning of gender in modern Western society. With many of the Left wishing to maintain that gender is purely a social construct, how do they possibly square that with different standards based upon gender? I don't see those people rushing to get rid of gender segregated sports, scholarships, and other situations in which it's usually perceived that women would lose as a result.

If a 5ft 8inch woman is 90lbs soaking wet, comes up and tells you she's fat, are you going to pretend she is and recommend that she curb her diet in order to lose weight? What if someone obviously over 30 years old insisted that they're 12 years old, would you pretend they were?

If a person wishes to pretend they're a man or a woman when they're not, that's fine. However, I don't believe pretending that they are actually helps them. I certainly don't want these people bullied, as their suicide rates are astronomical -- I think this whole playing pretend deal not only hurts the individual transgender person and is further causing issues by forcing this view onto children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2480926)
Personally, I don't really concern myself with the gender of people using the restroom. I have been in public restrooms that are for both genders, families, one gender, etc. Even with that being my personal stance, is there a problem with providing gender neutral public restrooms for transgender people? Would that still force you into something that you don't like?

Gender neutral restrooms are not the same as saying that a man who claims he is a woman can use a woman-only restroom. If gender is merely a social construct, how can any restroom be gender segregated? How can anything be segregated by gender?

A huge part of the problem for me, as Pacer hit on, was there does not seem to be any compromise from the Left. Looking at another issue, guns in the case, there always seem to be these grand compromises promised; ban the private sale of machine guns after 1986, and we're good on the 2A. Did that happen? No. In fact, many of the same people who made this compromise used that compromise as a means to continue the march down the very same path that they promised was solved -- towards banning more and more firearms, usually due to simply the look of it. With the LGBTQA community, it wasn't long ago that it was essentially sold as "once gay marriage is passed, we're happy." Okay, but did that happen? No. Then it quickly morphed into demanding that people pretend there is no issue with those suffering and believing themselves to be transgender. What seems to have become a grand social experiment, the military, now allows people whom believe they're transgender to join -- knowing that they'll likely elect to receive major surgery which many studies show does little to improve their life -- if not actually further degrading it. How are you going to let someone into the military that has all of the medical issues related to transgenderism, but you won't let other people in with less severe medical issues join?

PacerDawn 04-23-2017 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2480950)
With the LGBTQA community, it wasn't long ago that it was essentially sold as "once gay marriage is passed, we're happy." Okay, but did that happen? No.

Indeed, this is a big issue with gay marriage. The left said all they wanted was gay marriage, and there was no reason to oppose it since it wouldn't affect anyone other than the people involved. What does it matter if two dudes want to marry and a Christian doesn't approve of it? They aren't involving the Christian at all, so why is that person complaining? So the measure passed. Then they decided that "hmm, well, we want a Christian bakery to cater our wedding", which meant Christians actually DID have to get involved with the gay wedding after all, despite what they said prior.

I have always asked those who are for forcing the Christian bakery to cater a gay wedding due to discrimination: Would they be OK forcing a black baker to cater a KKK rally? I still have not gotten a reply to that one.

The left doesn't want liberty. Forcing a person to do something they do not want to do is NOT liberty, it's the exact opposite. No, they actually want totalitarianism enforced by the government. That is extremely scary to me, and should be to anyone.

VenomUSMC 04-23-2017 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacerDawn (Post 2480964)
Indeed, this is a big issue with gay marriage. The left said all they wanted was gay marriage, and there was no reason to oppose it since it wouldn't affect anyone other than the people involved. What does it matter if two dudes want to marry and a Christian doesn't approve of it? They aren't involving the Christian at all, so why is that person complaining? So the measure passed. Then they decided that "hmm, well, we want a Christian bakery to cater our wedding", which meant Christians actually DID have to get involved with the gay wedding after all, despite what they said prior.

I have always asked those who are for forcing the Christian bakery to cater a gay wedding due to discrimination: Would they be OK forcing a black baker to cater a KKK rally? I still have not gotten a reply to that one.

The left doesn't want liberty. Forcing a person to do something they do not want to do is NOT liberty, it's the exact opposite. No, they actually want totalitarianism enforced by the government. That is extremely scary to me, and should be to anyone.

I think you're absolutely right, and the jump was instant with that movement.

Also, you may be a bigot if you're not attracted to women with a penis. Cissexist scum!

blackzc 04-23-2017 06:26 PM

All this stupid ass talk about liberal and conservatives. Le kek. Muh anarchy, muh constitution. All of this is a White mans game that no other race save the Asians can en'mass comprehend in such a way that keeps the peace or foster progress. And by progress i mean trad family, space travel, renewable energy, getting off the growth based economy addiction and actually living a life outside of the rat wheel, social and demographic hegemony. Do you R tards even realize the energy and life spent by Americans partaking in white flight to try to live around their own kind and be safe from dangerous minorities? Its a fucking trillion dollar racket and it destroys families.

You fucking stupid mother fuckers cant seem to get it through your thick skulls that there is only one thing at play here.

Demographics is destiny. Until the larping parasites/enemies running the mid card of our society are put back in the correct pecking order and the people that can maintain this civilization are back in charge the west will continue to slide into oblivion.

But yeah, keep on with your neocon bullshit. The left has beat you at every single issue besides guns for the past 50 years. You goddam losers. You are worthless and at this point the enemy as well.

AMERICA!! I dont know nutting bout no democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government but goddam, trucks, guns, fishin n shit. Wut else do u need boy? Dont forget to support your local Union, wut are ya, some kinda commie er somethin? Workers got rights! N might makes right!
http://i67.tinypic.com/29esiz8.gif

blackzc 04-23-2017 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2480965)
Also, you may be a bigot if you're not attracted to women with a penis. Cissexist scum!


Ohh nigga, you trouble hot.


Debating garbage like this is the reason you are worthless when it comes to politics.

Terran 04-23-2017 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480967)
The left has beat you at every single issue besides guns for the past 50 years. You goddam losers.

Thank God you're here to remind us of what it means to be a winner. LOL! :D

VenomUSMC 04-23-2017 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480968)
Ohh nigga, you trouble hot.


Debating garbage like this is the reason you are worthless when it comes to politics.

I'd say posts like this illustrate why you're worthless. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480967)
All this stupid ass talk about liberal and conservatives. Le kek. Muh anarchy, muh constitution. All of this talk is a White mans game that no other race save the Asians can en'mass comprehend in such a way that keeps the peace or foster progress. And by progress i mean trad family, space travel, renewable energy, getting off the growth based economy addiction and actually living a life outside of the rat wheel, social and demographic hegemony.

You fucking stupid mother fuckers cant seem to get it through your thick skulls that there is only one thing at play here.

Demographics is destiny. Until the larping parasites/enemies running the mid card of our society are put back in the correct pecking order and the people that can maintain this civilization are back in charge the west will continue to slide into oblivion.

But yeah, keep on with your neocon bullshit. The left has beat you at every single issue besides guns for the past 50 years. You goddam losers. You are worthless and at this point the enemy as well.

Demographics are not destiny, as look at how demographics can shift. If white Americans dominating the U.S. population offered the sort of racial salvation you desire, it would have been achieved.

You didn't reproduce, right? Yet here you are talking about "demographics is destiny" when you did what? Let me put it in terms you may understand: "YouZ don't have no kids, dumbass." You're pretty much a parasite by your own standard; you want to complain about demographics, but you don't - or can't - contribute to the very cause you claim to have a hard-on for. But yeah, keep on with all your talk about white demographics in-between mopping about your life on a message board. Back to your safe space.

blackzc 04-23-2017 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2480971)
I'd say posts like this illustrate why you're worthless. Period.

Demographics are not destiny, as look at how demographics can shift. If white Americans dominating the U.S. population offered the sort of racial salvation you desire, it would have been achieved.

You didn't reproduce, right? Yet here you are talking about "demographics is destiny" when you did what? Let me put it in terms you may understand: "YouZ don't have no kids, dumbass." You're pretty much a parasite by your own standard; you want to complain about demographics, but you don't - or can't - contribute to the very cause you claim to have a hard-on for. But yeah, keep on with all your talk about white demographics in-between mopping about your life on a message board. Back to your safe space.

Herpa Derpa Filter.

Your shits all messed up. Back to your cuckshed Johnny American! Buy more guns and store them in your cuckshed! That'll show em!

Them damned ol liberals, dont they know that a man is not supposed ta lay with another man? I aint no rascist, but that just aint rite! Dont tread on me daag nabbit! These colors dont run!

Hitler didn't have kids and neither did Jesus. But please, go on about its the only thing that matters. I've red pilled many many people and got them second guessing the destructive ideas that you cling to. And get ready old man, your kids are going to see you for the fraud you are. They will be closer politically to me than they will be you.

Bank on it.

Terran 04-23-2017 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480967)
Demographics is destiny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480972)
But please, go on about its the only thing that matters.

Hey dumbass, YOU are the one going on about demographics. So WHAT THE HELL have you done about it? EH?

I have six kids, you parasitical little POS. Six kids, the oldest of whom just scored a 33 on the ACT (can you count that high?) and for whom I've never received a dime of public assistance. Got children? Done anything about America's demographics?

You're worse than useless. You're a dead branch of the DNA tree. You're not only racist, you're incapable of helping your own race when you say it's all that matters, lol. :D

blackzc 04-23-2017 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran (Post 2480976)
Hey dumbass, YOU are the one going on about demographics. So WHAT THE HELL have you done about it? EH?

I have six kids, you parasitical little POS. Six kids, the oldest of whom just scored a 33 on the ACT (can you count that high?) and for whom I've never received a dime of public assistance. Got children? Done anything about America's demographics?

You're worse than useless. You're a dead branch of the DNA tree. You're not only racist, you're incapable of helping your own race when you say it's all that matters, lol. :D


You fucking numpty. I never once said everyone that is white needs to go out and have a bunch of fucking kids just because. You cant outbreed 30 million mexicans that have little to no standard of living nor have any shame about mooching off the fucking government. They will breed the country broke soon. Now tell me what good is me having 5 kids going to do. What do i need 5 for? I don't have a fucking farm. You fix the demographics by deporting them...

This isn't a numbers game where who has more wins. White Americans and Europeans along with the Japanese progressed. We are entering a post industrial world and less people are required. This is fine, but the elites don't want this to happen as it would contract the global economy.

You seems to only care about your filthy brood and your family tree. I care about whats best for everyone. I can just as easily call you the parasite queer bait. That shit goes both ways.

Im not only a racist? LOL! Dude, get the fuck outta here with that mess. Tell someone who cares. Liberal scumbag.

Terran 04-23-2017 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480977)
I care about whats best for everyone.

I'm sure that's the impression everyone has of you in life. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480977)
Im not only a racist?

Exactly. Not only a racist, you're a dead branch of the DNA tree, for which humanity thanks you. Useless race-baiting hypocrite who can't even bother to reproduce his own race while bitching about other races. :D

SpectralThundr 04-23-2017 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480968)
Ohh nigga, you trouble hot.


Debating garbage like this is the reason you are worthless when it comes to politics.

Welcome back Anemonealomadingdong.

blackzc 04-23-2017 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran (Post 2480979)
I'm sure that's the impression everyone has of you in life. :rolleyes:



Exactly. Not only a racist, you're a dead branch of the DNA tree, for which humanity thanks you. Useless race-baiting hypocrite who can't even bother to reproduce his own race while bitching about other races. :D


Your using the words race baiting hypocrite unironically. I have nothing left to say to you. Filthy liberal. Are you triggered?

blackzc 04-23-2017 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2480981)
Welcome back Anemonealomadingdong.

Get fucked. Anenome's typography is 1/10 of what mine is.

Terran 04-23-2017 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480983)
Your using the words race baiting hypocrite unironically. I have nothing left to say to you. Filthy liberal. Are you triggered?

Speaking of irony: After you had nothing left to say, you said two more things. Your lack of self-awareness is amusing. :D

SpectralThundr 04-24-2017 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran (Post 2480989)
Speaking of irony: After you had nothing left to say, you said two more things. Your lack of self-awareness is amusing. :D

Whats more amusing is his often use of applying the liberal label to what are likely the most conservative even almost actual libertarian leaning posters on the entire site. And I don't mean Anenome's brand of authoritarianism type of Ancapistan brand of thinking but actual small, fiscally balanced type of libertarianism, essentially the sane kind.

VenomUSMC 04-24-2017 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480972)
Herpa Derpa Filter.

Your shits all messed up. Back to your cuckshed Johnny American! Buy more guns and store them in your cuckshed! That'll show em!

Them damned ol liberals, dont they know that a man is not supposed ta lay with another man? I aint no rascist, but that just aint rite! Dont tread on me daag nabbit! These colors dont run!

Hitler didn't have kids and neither did Jesus. But please, go on about its the only thing that matters. I've red pilled many many people and got them second guessing the destructive ideas that you cling to. And get ready old man, your kids are going to see you for the fraud you are. They will be closer politically to me than they will be you.

Bank on it.

Who made a claim that something was the "only thing that matters" in here? That was you.

I don't buy that you've "red pilled" people, especially if your delivery echoes the way you push your views here. I'd wager anyone you believe you red pilled was probably already a racist and fully accepting of your racial idiocy, but you've decided that you red pilled them.

Will your children see you for the fraud you are? Oh, right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2480977)
You fucking numpty. I never once said everyone that is white needs to go out and have a bunch of fucking kids just because. You cant outbreed 30 million mexicans that have little to no standard of living nor have any shame about mooching off the fucking government. They will breed the country broke soon. Now tell me what good is me having 5 kids going to do. What do i need 5 for? I don't have a fucking farm. You fix the demographics by deporting them...

This isn't a numbers game where who has more wins. White Americans and Europeans along with the Japanese progressed. We are entering a post industrial world and less people are required. This is fine, but the elites don't want this to happen as it would contract the global economy.

You seems to only care about your filthy brood and your family tree. I care about whats best for everyone. I can just as easily call you the parasite queer bait. That shit goes both ways.

Im not only a racist? LOL! Dude, get the fuck outta here with that mess. Tell someone who cares. Liberal scumbag.

According to a few sources, the NYT and PEW in this case, there were about 11.7 million people illegally in the U.S. in 2013 and about 11.1 million people illegally in the U.S. in 2014. For the sake of argument, lets say there are 12 million people illegally in the U.S. currently.

According to National Review:
Quote:

One hundred ten million! That’s how many Americans now live in households that receive some form of means-tested welfare benefit from the federal government. According to a report from the Census Bureau released last week, that’s the highest absolute number in American history, and it represents 35.4 percent of the American population. Think about it — more than one out of every three Americans live in households that are now on welfare. Looked at another way, America’s welfare state now has nearly three times the population of the largest actual state. Because many of these households include more than one person, the number of individual households is smaller, but still a record – roughly 33.5 million, more than a quarter of the country’s households. Worse, 10.5 million households receive benefits from three or more separate programs. While liberals would undoubtedly like to blame this on the bad economy, the welfare rolls have actually grown by nearly 4 million households since the end of the recession. Welfare is rising even as unemployment declines. On the other hand, the growing welfare caseload cannot be blamed solely on President Obama. True, the number of people on welfare has increased by 12.5 million since he took office. But welfare also increased during the Bush administration: The proportion of households receiving SNAP (food stamps), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), or SSI (Supplemental Security Income for the disabled) increased 36 percent during his presidency. And none of these numbers include the middle-class social-welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security. Counting these programs, more than 153 million Americans, nearly half the population (49.5 percent), are living in households now dependent on government for a significant portion of their income.
Deporting people illegally here would reduce the burden -- it would absolutely not fix the economic issue, and would not provide the demographic shift you want.

Now you seem too slow to grasp why you're being labeled a parasite, and that label came from your own idiotic complaints.

According to The American Prospect:
Quote:

So who gets welfare? This is where the race issue enters. Contrary to popular perception, the recipients of TANF are about equally divided between whites, blacks and Hispanics. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2009 the TANF rolls were 31.2 percent white, 33.3 percent black, and 28.8 percent Hispanic. Yet the primary image of a "welfare recipient" in most people's mind is a black woman.
Now if you read the article, you may ask yourself: gee, why are the numbers different? Because different groups will count different programs in which the government transfers some benefit to a family as welfare. Still, based upon the the percentages here, how does that look to you? In the way that many liberals count welfare, in an effort to minimize its cost, black and hispanic Americans make up % that is disproportionate the % those groups represent overall the U.S. population. That is in large part where the views of a black woman being on welfare come from, but the author can't see that he provided evidence for that case. However, if you count welfare the way places like National Review count, you'll see an increase in whites receiving welfare. Why? Because they're counting more programs as welfare that will be seen paying out to whites. What's the point? Your fantasy of deporting non-whites isn't going to solve the economic issues plaguing this country. The only hope your dream has is the deportation of people illegally here, which is facing numerous hurdles, but you have no hope of deporting people legally here -- especially based upon your racist crap.

It's funny that you post about people being "cucks" who just argue things on the internet... as you argue on the internet.

blackzc 04-24-2017 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2481003)
Who made a claim that something was the "only thing that matters" in here? That was you.

I don't buy that you've "red pilled" people, especially if your delivery echoes the way you push your views here. I'd wager anyone you believe you red pilled was probably already a racist and fully accepting of your racial idiocy, but you've decided that you red pilled them.

Will your children see you for the fraud you are? Oh, right.

According to a few sources, the NYT and PEW in this case, there were about 11.7 million people illegally in the U.S. in 2013 and about 11.1 million people illegally in the U.S. in 2014. For the sake of argument, lets say there are 12 million people illegally in the U.S. currently.

According to National Review:

Deporting people illegally here would reduce the burden -- it would absolutely not fix the economic issue, and would not provide the demographic shift you want.

Now you seem too slow to grasp why you're being labeled a parasite, and that label came from your own idiotic complaints.

According to The American Prospect: Now if you read the article, you may ask yourself: gee, why are the numbers different? Because different groups will count different programs in which the government transfers some benefit to a family as welfare. Still, based upon the the percentages here, how does that look to you? In the way that many liberals count welfare, in an effort to minimize its cost, black and hispanic Americans make up % that is disproportionate the % those groups represent overall the U.S. population. That is in large part where the views of a black woman being on welfare come from, but the author can't see that he provided evidence for that case. However, if you count welfare the way places like National Review count, you'll see an increase in whites receiving welfare. Why? Because they're counting more programs as welfare that will be seen paying out to whites. What's the point? Your fantasy of deporting non-whites isn't going to solve the economic issues plaguing this country. The only hope your dream has is the deportation of people illegally here, which is facing numerous hurdles, but you have no hope of deporting people legally here -- especially based upon your racist crap.

It's funny that you post about people being "cucks" who just argue things on the internet... as you argue on the internet.

I didn't read any of that. I don't have all day to fuck around with your drawn out shit.

Come back with some to the point bantz or go the fuck away. Merica!

Whimbrel 04-24-2017 12:49 PM

I mean absolutely no disrespect, and I know that some people took the time to write civil and thoughtful responses, but this thread has taken a strange turn since the last time I was posting and I am not sure I can meaningfully reply at this point without just adding to the confusion. If I picked just one topic to carry forward I would neglect others, but the scope of this seems to be expanding rapidly. Science, global warming, gender identity, gay marriage, guns.....

I would say that the chromosomal basis for gender in humans is well established. I never disputed that. My point was that gender has more dimensions than the simple chromosomal basis. I think this would be true even if we were simple mammals, but when you add in social and historical associations with gender, for humans it becomes and even more complicated issue. So far everyone seems to disagree with me on this, so I won't belabor the point and I will acknowledge that the consensus here is that gender is a one dimensional issue based exclusively on chromosomes, if that is a fair representation of what was being said.

blackzc 04-24-2017 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whimbrel (Post 2481016)
i mean absolutely no disrespect, and i know that some people took the time to write civil and thoughtful responses, but this thread has taken a strange turn since the last time i was posting and i am not sure i can meaningfully reply at this point without just adding to the confusion. If i picked just one topic to carry forward i would neglect others, but the scope of this seems to be expanding rapidly. Science, global warming, gender identity, gay marriage, guns.....

I would say that the chromosomal basis for gender in humans is well established. I never disputed that. My point was that gender has more dimensions than the simple chromosomal basis. I think this would be true even if we were simple mammals, but when you add in social and historical associations with gender, for humans it becomes and even more complicated issue. So far everyone seems to disagree with me on this, so i won't belabor the point and i will acknowledge that the consensus here is that gender is a one dimensional issue based exclusively on chromosomes, if that is a fair representation of what was being said.

hahahahahahaha

VenomUSMC 04-24-2017 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481016)
I mean absolutely no disrespect, and I know that some people took the time to write civil and thoughtful responses, but this thread has taken a strange turn since the last time I was posting and I am not sure I can meaningfully reply at this point without just adding to the confusion. If I picked just one topic to carry forward I would neglect others, but the scope of this seems to be expanding rapidly. Science, global warming, gender identity, gay marriage, guns.....

All of the arguments remain connected in one way or another was my point of pointing to those issues.

I'll copy and paste the following from my previous post:
Quote:

If a 5ft 8inch woman is 90lbs soaking wet, comes up and tells you she's fat, are you going to pretend she is and recommend that she curb her diet in order to lose weight? What if someone obviously over 30 years old insisted that they're 12 years old, would you pretend they were?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481016)
I would say that the chromosomal basis for gender in humans is well established. I never disputed that. My point was that gender has more dimensions than the simple chromosomal basis. I think this would be true even if we were simple mammals, but when you add in social and historical associations with gender, for humans it becomes and even more complicated issue. So far everyone seems to disagree with me on this, so I won't belabor the point and I will acknowledge that the consensus here is that gender is a one dimensional issue based exclusively on chromosomes, if that is a fair representation of what was being said.

While I understand that a lot is involved with genders outside of a person's chromosomal makeup, chromosomes are the foundation of gender. If you can't change the foundation, all of the other stuff is pretty much fluff in my view.

So, for example, the way men and women dress is, to me, part of culture, history, and often grew as a result of general anatomy differences. If a person wishes to argue that gender is purely (and I'm not implying that this is your argument) a product of society and actually arbitrary, then there should be no such thing as gender.

Hormonal treatment, dressing in a manner normally associated with the other gender, and even surgery doesn't change the foundation.

Terran 04-24-2017 02:35 PM

Whimbrel, progressives are insane on sex identification. It used to be called transsexual and a sex change, because that is what the person is attempting to do (change their chromosomal, biological sexual orientation), but that's a scientific impossibility, so progressives simply changed the verbiage to make the impossible (sex change) possible (gender identification, transgender, etc.). Progressives want these individuals to be treated as if they have had a sex change while hiding the impossibility of it through euphemistic bull about gender identification and the like.

You cannot change your sex. A cancer victim without breasts, a uterus, ovaries, etc. is still a woman. A cancer victim without a penis is still a man. Cutting off, or adding on, parts does not alter REALITY. XX or XY. THAT IS ALL for 99.9% of humanity.

You do not solve a person's psychological disturbances by reorienting society (through altered birth licenses, driver's licenses, etc.) to reinforce the disturbed and incorrect view. This is not an issue of rights, it is an issue of reality. It's so simple a child understands it, so now we have progressives messing up children by allowing five year olds to change their chromosomal sex while calling it 'gender identity.' My GOD, progressives are absolutely insane. Just nuts.

blackzc 04-24-2017 02:48 PM

We should see if we cant get EA to change the name of this sub board to (The Cuck Shed)

It can be a place were cucks such as yourselves can come and vent about liberal policy in a civil manner while they totally run roughshot over your shit because unlike you guys they have a set of fucking balls. Which is ironic. MERICA! Guns and tits! No tread!

Later bros, im out again. See in a 6 months, a year whatever. Its genuinely boring here.

Terran 04-24-2017 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackzc (Post 2481031)
See in a 6 months, a year whatever.

Procreate or GTFO. lol@u. :D

Whimbrel 04-24-2017 03:14 PM

I'm not trying to say that these ideas and perspectives aren't related, just that it makes discussing them sequentially really challenging. If I get 6 replies from 6 different people on 6 different topics after the first post, that just tends to expand geometrically down the thread. In any case, I'll tackle both Vanum and Teran's replies at the same time here and with all due respect (which I'm assuming is minimum ) I will ignore blackzc's contributions.

So, really quickly, what does it mean to be transgendered? I'm not, and I don't know that much about it, so, I'm mostly guessing here. Secondly, I completely disagree with most of the overly generalized statements about what liberals think, but I'm only one and I can't speak for everybody.

Having said that, it seems to me that being transgendered is NOT an attempt to change ones chromosomes, "because that is what the person is attempting to do (change their chromosomal, biological sexual orientation), but that's a scientific impossibility" - Terran, but that it is about how one presents and is responded to on a cultural level. In many cases, there is no attempt to change anatomy even.

However, regardless of what we decide or disagree with about what transgender means, so what. My biggest reaction to this is not that we disagree about transgender, although we certainly do, but that I can not understand why people who are not transgender even care about this at all. How is this an issue? Why even care about it? Are there thousands of transgender people harrassing you all the time every day? Seriously, when was the last time either of you had to interact with somebody who was transgender in any way whatsoever that caused any problem, inconvenience, challenge, etc. that you had to deal with any more than having to accommodate fellow human beings on a daily basis in all of our lives sharing public areas in our society?

If it wasn't this week, then why is this even on your radar? I'm not saying that you should capitulate and say, oh, ok, you win if it isn't an immediate situation. I'm just trying to figure out why this has anything to do with anything? I mean, it seems to me that the number of transgender people has to be pretty small to begin with, and the number of bathroom molestations by transgender people is pretty low compared to heterosexual molestations or homosexual bathroom molestations, one local example of which was so horrifying that I still have trouble letting my son go to the bathroom when I can't keep an eye on the door in public areas. So, maybe we can start there?

and, at risk of causing problems for myself downstream, let me just ask WTF on this one...."With the LGBTQA community, it wasn't long ago that it was essentially sold as "once gay marriage is passed, we're happy." Okay, but did that happen? No. Then it quickly morphed into demanding that people pretend there is no issue with those suffering and believing themselves to be transgender." There is a huge difference between what you see here and what I see. Most of it has to do with the idea that a community of individuals can be summed up by some idea that is considered what they are sold by. Of course that is going to be incorrect. You show me where the whole community of L, G, B, T, Q, A people said "All we want is this one thing, and after that we will never have any other human desires" It's absolutely absurd. There are too many generalizations, characterizations, and shortcuts to even make sense of that. These are people and individuals, not a monolithic entity, certainly not one whose identity and agenda is accurately defined by those opposed to it.

VenomUSMC 04-24-2017 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
So, really quickly, what does it mean to be transgendered? I'm not, and I don't know that much about it, so, I'm mostly guessing here. Secondly, I completely disagree with most of the overly generalized statements about what liberals think, but I'm only one and I can't speak for everybody.

As I understand it, and this was as explained to me by someone believing themselves to be transgendered, being transgendered person means that you're fully and completely a woman/man if you believe you're a woman/man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
Having said that, it seems to me that being transgendered is NOT an attempt to change ones chromosomes, "because that is what the person is attempting to do (change their chromosomal, biological sexual orientation), but that's a scientific impossibility" - Terran, but that it is about how one presents and is responded to on a cultural level. In many cases, there is no attempt to change anatomy even.

I believe it's an attempt to change the result of one's chromosomal makeup in any way possible. If they could change their chromosomes, they would -- it's just not possible as far as we know. It's not merely about changing how gender is presented culturally, it's about pretending that their chromosomes aren't what they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
However, regardless of what we decide or disagree with about what transgender means, so what. My biggest reaction to this is not that we disagree about transgender, although we certainly do, but that I can not understand why people who are not transgender even care about this at all. How is this an issue? Why even care about it? Are there thousands of transgender people harrassing you all the time every day? Seriously, when was the last time either of you had to interact with somebody who was transgender in any way whatsoever that caused any problem, inconvenience, challenge, etc. that you had to deal with any more than having to accommodate fellow human beings on a daily basis in all of our lives sharing public areas in our society?

People who are not transgender care about this because they're forced - yes, forced - to play along with it. People lose their jobs over not playing along. And by not playing along, I'm not referring to people bullying transgendered individuals. I've seen the hammer come down on people, especially those in the government, for not using the pronoun of the week. As Pacer pointed out, albeit with a different but related situation, people have lost their businesses over not wanting to get involved. So, how many times have I had to deal with a transgendered person that caused problems? Personally and anecdotally, on a fairly regular basis (think once a week or so). At work, we had a blowup over [strike]Bradley[/i] Chelsea Manning. The advocates, many of whom aren't even transgender but some are, were getting people in trouble for referring to Manning as Manning and avoiding pronouns or his first name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
If it wasn't this week, then why is this even on your radar? I'm not saying that you should capitulate and say, oh, ok, you win if it isn't an immediate situation. I'm just trying to figure out why this has anything to do with anything? I mean, it seems to me that the number of transgender people has to be pretty small to begin with, and the number of bathroom molestations by transgender people is pretty low compared to heterosexual molestations or homosexual bathroom molestations, one local example of which was so horrifying that I still have trouble letting my son go to the bathroom when I can't keep an eye on the door in public areas. So, maybe we can start there?

It has. And if it wasn't on my radar this week. This will ultimately grow, just as with gay marriage, where people will be forced by to play along or lose their very livelihoods over it under the force of government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
and, at risk of causing problems for myself downstream, let me just ask WTF on this one...."With the LGBTQA community, it wasn't long ago that it was essentially sold as "once gay marriage is passed, we're happy." Okay, but did that happen? No. Then it quickly morphed into demanding that people pretend there is no issue with those suffering and believing themselves to be transgender." There is a huge difference between what you see here and what I see. Most of it has to do with the idea that a community of individuals can be summed up by some idea that is considered what they are sold by. Of course that is going to be incorrect. You show me where the whole community of L, G, B, T, Q, A people said "All we want is this one thing, and after that we will never have any other human desires" It's absolutely absurd. There are too many generalizations, characterizations, and shortcuts to even make sense of that. These are people and individuals, not a monolithic entity, certainly not one whose identity and agenda is accurately defined by those opposed to it.

When you reference a group, you're going to deal in generalizations -- otherwise, you can't talk about the group. In fact, your very first post came with broad generalizations on groups and entire generations of people. The LGBTQA group is often seen pushing all of this, and it was a general theme that once gay marriage was legalized, that it would lead to a general happy "we got what we want" feeling from that group. It immediately lead to gay/lesbian individuals seeking out businesses that to force their will upon.

Also, you never answered this:
Quote:

If a 5ft 8inch woman is 90lbs soaking wet, comes up and tells you she's fat, are you going to pretend she is and recommend that she curb her diet in order to lose weight? What if someone obviously over 30 years old insisted that they're 12 years old, would you pretend they were?

Terran 04-25-2017 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2481041)
Also, you never answered this:

Quote:

If a 5ft 8inch woman is 90lbs soaking wet, comes up and tells you she's fat, are you going to pretend she is and recommend that she curb her diet in order to lose weight? What if someone obviously over 30 years old insisted that they're 12 years old, would you pretend they were?

Want to see a progressive's head explode? Ask him/her why gender is a social construct (transsexualism) open to interpretation and individual choice, but race is not (aka: Rachel Dolezal); they're fine with changing your sex like you change your clothes, but at best conflicted and at worst in open internecine warfare over opting into or out of a racial category.

Sit back and watch the hilarity ensue. :D

PacerDawn 04-25-2017 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
I will ignore blackzc's contributions.

And your life will be better for it, trust me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
So, really quickly, what does it mean to be transgendered? I'm not, and I don't know that much about it, so, I'm mostly guessing here.

Transgenderism is a mental illness called "Gender Identity Disorder" (GID). Basically, someone with GID has great discomfort with their currently body (penis or vagina), so much so that they are in constant distress about it. Basically, they think they are one sex, but when they look down they see the opposite one. They have great urges to change their body to be the other sex.

The current "preferred" treatment that is acceptance, but that only partially works. It is impossible for a person to change their body completely to the other sex (they can never produce sperm or bear children) so there will always be a level of discomfort. The best that can be done through acceptance is making them feel as comfortable as possible, even if this means making non-transgenders uncomfortable. And that still won't help them most of the time.

Here's a question: If I told you a person looked in the mirror and hated the way their body looked, so much so that they would take extreme measures to change it, would you consider that normal? Would you say that acceptance and encouragement was a good cure? Think about that for a second and I'll come back.

More recently, the left has been pushing this condition as "Gender Dysphoria" so that people with the condition will not have to suffer the stigma of being considered mentally ill. Basically, the term GID hurt their feelings so they changed it. The irony there is that, by NOT classifying it as a mental illness, they are saying that Transgenderism is a choice (as is homosexuality). By being a choice, that removes certain discrimination protections that they would be afforded were it classified as an illness. Of course, they want the protections anyway.

Oh, by the way, that question I asked earlier? I was talking about Anorexia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
Secondly, I completely disagree with most of the overly generalized statements about what liberals think, but I'm only one and I can't speak for everybody.

True, but you have to admit it is the majority or the most vocal. It's hard not to generalize when all you hear from a side is one thing. That happens to the right all the time, it's just human nature. For example, do you not like conservatives? If not, why? Name any reason, and you will be generalizing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
Having said that, it seems to me that being transgendered is NOT an attempt to change ones chromosomes, "because that is what the person is attempting to do (change their chromosomal, biological sexual orientation), but that's a scientific impossibility" - Terran, but that it is about how one presents and is responded to on a cultural level. In many cases, there is no attempt to change anatomy even.

Actually, that appears not to be the case. What you just described is something different. According to this page:

Quote:

Gender dysphoria is not the same as gender nonconformity, which refers to behaviors not matching the gender norms or stereotypes of the gender assigned at birth. Examples of gender nonconformity (also referred to as gender expansiveness or gender creativity) include girls behaving and dressing in ways more socially expected of boys or occasional cross-dressing in adult men. Gender nonconformity is not a mental disorder.
That last bit is debatable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
My biggest reaction to this is not that we disagree about transgender, although we certainly do, but that I can not understand why people who are not transgender even care about this at all. How is this an issue? Why even care about it?

The issue looks different depending on which side of the fence you stand on. The left sees the issue as being "They don't want you to use their bathrooms." Or they don't see it as an issue because "Why don't you care if a man goes to the bathroom in the ladies room?". For the right, the issue is "They want to force themselves into your bathroom, and you don't get a say in it." Or they don't see it as an issue because "Why can't they just go to the bathroom of their birth sex?"

Personally, I don't care if some dude thinks he's a girl. However, I don't want my 11 year old daughter sharing a locker room that guy. My daughter doesn't want to either. But we are being told we have to. The problem is that we are being forced to accept transgenderism as normal, or we are called bigots. And I don't want my kids being taught (in public school) that it's normal either. Hence, issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
I mean, it seems to me that the number of transgender people has to be pretty small to begin with, and the number of bathroom molestations by transgender people is pretty low compared to heterosexual molestations or homosexual bathroom molestations

I hear this argument (or rather those like it) all the time, that we shouldn't be using molestation as an argument because molesters don't adhere to laws and they are going to do it anyway. And that's absolutely true, they don't and they will. But think of it this way. Today, if a man walks into the girls locker room/bathroom, we KNOW that guy is a pervert. I would argue that there is less chance of someone doing it if there are people standing around and that person could get caught.

Now imagine a world where it's perfectly OK for a man to go into the girls room. Is that man a pervert, or is he really transgender? We don't know, and since it's legal he is welcome to stroll right on in there. Do you really think people won't take advantage of this?

And, regardless, do women still want a man in their room? Well too bad if they don't. Apparently it's better to make real women uncomfortable, than to have to make special accommodations for a trans. And there we come to another big issue:

A man is uncomfortable with going to the men's room because that man thinks he is a woman. Solution, let that man go to the women's room where is is comfortable.

A woman is uncomfortable with a man going into the women's room, even if that man thinks he is a woman. Solution, stop being a bigot and accept that man in your bathroom.

One sided perhaps? I'd say yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whimbrel (Post 2481033)
...let me just ask WTF on this one...."With the LGBTQA community, it wasn't long ago that it was essentially sold as "once gay marriage is passed, we're happy." Okay, but did that happen? No...." [...] You show me where the whole community of L, G, B, T, Q, A people said "All we want is this one thing, and after that we will never have any other human desires" It's absolutely absurd.

The main argument was “How is gay marriage going to affect you?” As in, it's not going to affect those that are against it. In fact, it's that same argument that you are using with regards to transgenderism. You are asking why we care, how does it affect us? That's exactly what was said during the push for Gay marriage, with the implication that it wouldn't impact those that didn't support it. And yet it did.

PacerDawn 04-25-2017 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran (Post 2481062)
Want to see a progressive's head explode? Ask him/her why gender is a social construct (transsexualism) open to interpretation and individual choice, but race is not (aka: Rachel Dolezal); they're fine with changing your sex like you change your clothes, but at best conflicted and at worst in open internecine warfare over opting into or out of a racial category.

I would actually argue that race is MORE a social construct than gender is. Yet which one is identity change accepted and which one is not?

Strange indeed.

PacerDawn 04-25-2017 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2481041)
At work, we had a blowup over Bradley Chelsea Manning. The advocates, many of whom aren't even transgender but some are, were getting people in trouble for referring to Manning as Manning and avoiding pronouns or his first name.

I find this especially amusing since, in the military, people are typically referred to by their last name only.

How dare they refer to a military person by their last name! That's bigoted! Watch for changes coming to the local military near you soon!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:11 AM.