4 4
winsor

Woke is a Joke

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, billvon said:
11 hours ago, Coreece said:

Sorry for you.  I was replying to the post where you said, "That decision ultimately lies with the CHILD and their parents.

YOU said that.  So you'll have to take your outrage to a mirror.

 

In reference to teenage transitioning, you said:

"That decision ultimately lies with the child and their parents."

 

I responded:

"The only one that should be making that decision is the person that's going to have to live with it for the rest of their life, when both their body and mind are mature enough to do so.

Take Chloe Cole for example.  She didn't do that to herself, her parents and the professionals they relied on did that to her.  Probably wise to just wait several more years and let the child make the decision when they're an adult and responsible for their own choices."

 

You then go on about how a child can't make that decision after just saying the decision lies with the child and their parent, and then you start talking about infants.  Fine that's an important issue too, but not what we were talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, Coreece said:

Sorry for you.  I was replying to the post where you said, "That decision ultimately lies with the CHILD and their parents.

Yes, it lies with the child and their parents.  However, a two day old baby isn't going to add much to the discussion, so the parents will have to decide on their own.

When the child is eight, then they are going to be able to add a lot more to the discussion - and should be PART OF (not the final word) the decision.

(BTW I originally misread your reply, sorry.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2022 at 9:00 PM, Coreece said:

I'll give skydekker a pass on this one since I initially didn't see the parallel, which I have to admit is rather entertaining.  But it would've been nice if he also included something tangible about why he disagreed with the original comment he quoted.

You want a reasonable reaction to a post you admit was purposely inflammatory?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2022 at 9:34 PM, JoeWeber said:

But I'm wagering, without evidence, that rural kids who aren't hypnotized by social media, to the same degree as urban kids, are less likely to be overwhelmed by the need to change their gender in middle school.

Maybe some correlation with the higher suicide rates in rural areas.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Maybe some correlation with the higher suicide rates in rural areas.....

Maybe you're right. I just scanned this and higher rural rates do seem the norm since 1996. I'll need to look at it a lot closer, and look elsewhere for a connection, but the possibility seems real.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4551430/#:~:text=Suicide risk increases with age,aged 20 to 24 years.&text=Rates of suicide also vary,rural compared with urban areas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The humorlessness of the Woke is matched only by their inability to do their homework.  Their good intentions are those with which the road to hell is paved.

I'm not sure whether to attribute the Weltanschauung to willful ignorance, active stupidity, or a combination of both.

My news feed pops up such gems as this:

https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/social-justice-summer-camp-started-by-anarchists-to-be-held-in-oregon

It concerns me that such idiocy is supported to the extent that it is.  I wish people would not us comedy routines as instructional materials.

While I find censorship to be abhorrent, it also concerns me that people can read or hear tripe and take it seriously.

To use religion as a paradigm, it amazed me that when studying the Greek Myths it was taken as a given the mentions of the Greek Gods was treated as a literary device, while other texts of similar antiquity that referenced their deity of choice were accepted verbatim. Simply mind blowing.

My son put it nicely when he noted that "God is Ignorance."  His contention was that unsophisticated societies had a limited knowledge base, and that anything that was unknown was treated as unknowable and thus the work of "God."

It is a curious characteristic of humanity that when ignorance is addressed, any clarification is generally met with hostility by both the unwashed masses and, to a large extent, the 'intelligentsia.'  This leads to my observation that our only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is not king - he is a pariah.

T'was ever thus.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

The humorlessness of the Woke is matched only by their blah blah blah endless irrelevant dribble.

One of your favourite arguments is that people secretly are what they complain about. Hence you can dismiss anti racists as actual racists. 
 

Since you’re obsessed with wokeness and have never once told a joke it turns out that in your case you’re probably correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear winsor,

"God in the gaps" is a popular theological explanation.

This reminds me of a Sunday sermon that I wrote a few years back entitled "Religion or Science, what is your best guess?"

Back in the good-old-days whenever some one asked a question (e.g. Why is the sky blue?) the most common answer was "Because God wanted a blue sky."

Over the centuries, humans gradually filled in the gaps in the "God" explanation with observations and measurements of the wave-lengths of various colors of sun light, etc.

My sermon posits that science claims to explain all the mysteries of the universe, but much of what we accept as scientific fact today will be laughed off as poorly-informed speculation a few decades in the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

My sermon posits that science claims to explain all the mysteries of the universe, but much of what we accept as scientific fact today will be laughed off as poorly-informed speculation a few decades in the future.

Like what, for example?

Its surprising how long established a lot of our ‘facts’ are. While almost nothing is ever finished, the fundamentals generally stay solid and it’s fine detail being added. The stuff we’re just speculating about is not marketed as ‘fact’.

Think about it, Newton’s Mechanics from the 1600’s aren’t laughed off today. Darwin’s Species from the 1800s aren’t laughed off. Einstein’s Relativity in the prewar 1900s isn’t laughed off. 
 

Heck, even before the formalisation of the scientific method there was solid knowledge being generated. 2200 years ago someone calculate the circumference of the earth to within a couple of percent just using a map, a couple of shadows and a measuring stick. That’s not something to be laughed off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jakee said:

Like what, for example?

The existence of dark matter/dark energy comes to mind.

Quote

(Rob said) but much of what we accept as scientific fact today will be laughed off as poorly-informed speculation a few decades in the future.

I think a greater risk is that existing science (i.e. vaccines, space flight, the round-earth "theory", climate change, statistics) will be increasingly seen as poorly informed speculation for political reasons.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

He has it nailed.

God is ignorance, RELIGION is power.

Nah. Religion is the tool you use to wield the power. The deity, God(s), the construct that people are willing to suffer for because it will deliver them salvation, provides the power. 

Look at it from a different angle. Money (God) is power. The belief in the "American Dream" (religion) is what allows one to wield the power that makes people suffer voluntarily.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, metalslug said:

Can't make this stuff up. Forbid that science should misgender our anthropological relics (lest they offend the dead?). :|   Those wider pelvic bones, those cranial traits... heresy!

Oddly enough, early 20th century archaeologists were routinely inaccurate regarding the sex of Inca remains.

This was, however, the result of using rudimentary criteria more applicable to Europeans rather than of political correctness.

 

BSBD,

Winsor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2022 at 5:11 PM, metalslug said:

Facebook identifies 58 different genders for their community, 26 of which are variations of trans-something. Other similarly 'woke' platforms acknowledged just a few more or a few less. Would you assert that there's a scientific basis for all for these?  Somebody somewhere is having a shitload of funsies.

I was mocking up some data for work and saw an option to use Facebook's gender selections for a gender field, so finally decided to see what the list actually contained.

For some reason I thought it was going to be all neo-pronouns and random shit like people choosing to be trans-cats or something, based on the reactions to it. Colour me surprised when it is actually as plain as you said - it's just minor variations on trans-X. So you might have:

  • Trans-man
  • Transsexual-man
  • Transsexual-male
  • Transgender male
  • Transgender man
  • Trans male
  • Female to Male

...and a few others that would fit here, even though they might not really appear to be any different.

I would argue sure, there's not a scientific basis for this delineation, but there doesn't need to be. These appear to be more personal/refined expressions of something that's broadly the same, but can have slightly different meanings to an individual - you know, like on a spectrum? It's to let people use words they are comfortable with to describe themselves, while still sitting within pretty stock standard English language variations.

To interpret this as trans-people changing genders like they change their clothes (aka for "funsies") is a wilfully obtuse reading of the service Facebook are providing. It's barely any different to offering a preferred name or nickname option - my name is Christopher Wood, but I go by Chris or Woody depending on social context (never Christopher), however they're still all me. I just have a preference for which ones I use.

As per usual, this just sounds like another generic conservative media beat-up topic.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mistercwood said:

As per usual, this just sounds like another generic conservative media beat-up topic.

And it's absolutely nothing new.

When women started using "ms" instead of "miss" and "mrs" there was a huge conservative outcry.  "Women today don't even know if they are MARRIED!  Why are we supporting this lunacy?"

When women started keeping their last names instead of taking their husbands, there was a similar outcry.  In 1924 a state comptroller ruled that "the law in this country, that a wife takes the surname of the husband, is as well settled as that the domicile of the wife merges in the domicile of the husband."   An Alabama court (of course) even ruled keeping your name illegal in 1950.  In Wisconsin there was no definitive answer until 1975, where the State Supreme Court ruled that a woman had the choice.

In all cases, of course, it was eventually settled that the person involved decides what their name should be.  This is no different.  They can choose their last name, their first name, their prefix - and yes, even their pronoun.

Quote

I just have a preference for which ones I use.

Yep, same here.  I go by Bill or Billvon.  When someone calls me "William" it means they don't know me, which is useful.

Funny thing, though.  I've told thousands of people over the course of my life to call me Bill.  None have had a hissy fit over it - even though that's not the name on my birth certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billvon said:

 

Funny thing, though.  I've told thousands of people over the course of my life to call me Bill.  None have had a hissy fit over it - even though that's not the name on my birth certificate.

Bill is an odd name for a whole duck though rather than just a part of one.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, billvon said:

And it's absolutely nothing new.

When women started using "ms" instead of "miss" and "mrs" there was a huge conservative outcry.  "Women today don't even know if they are MARRIED!  Why are we supporting this lunacy?"

When women started keeping their last names instead of taking their husbands, there was a similar outcry.  In 1924 a state comptroller ruled that "the law in this country, that a wife takes the surname of the husband, is as well settled as that the domicile of the wife merges in the domicile of the husband."   An Alabama court (of course) even ruled keeping your name illegal in 1950.  In Wisconsin there was no definitive answer until 1975, where the State Supreme Court ruled that a woman had the choice.

In all cases, of course, it was eventually settled that the person involved decides what their name should be.  This is no different.  They can choose their last name, their first name, their prefix - and yes, even their pronoun.

Yep, same here.  I go by Bill or Billvon.  When someone calls me "William" it means they don't know me, which is useful.

Funny thing, though.  I've told thousands of people over the course of my life to call me Bill.  None have had a hissy fit over it - even though that's not the name on my birth certificate.

Hi 'Bill,'

So I am guessing that some of the things you posted were in the times that the GOP-ers want to ' go back to.'

At least that cleared all of that for me.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Legally Gerald, but please NEVER call me that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, billvon said:

In all cases, of course, it was eventually settled that the person involved decides what their name should be.  This is no different.  They can choose their last name, their first name, their prefix - and yes, even their pronoun.

Yep, same here.  I go by Bill or Billvon.  When someone calls me "William" it means they don't know me, which is useful.

Funny thing, though.  I've told thousands of people over the course of my life to call me Bill.  None have had a hissy fit over it - even though that's not the name on my birth certificate.

It is absolutely different and, as grammar goes, you really should know better. You're equating pronouns (he, she) with proper nouns (William, Bill) . They are distinctly different because proper nouns have no definition and that's precisely why they are not included in most dictionaries. Proper nouns are expected to be subject to change. Nouns and pronouns not. You're feeding directly into the Matt Walsh argument that if a person can select their own pronoun as a defining characteristic then others would be equally entitled to choose their own adjectives (handsome & brilliant) and will expect you to address them as such. Grammar corruption cuts both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, metalslug said:

They are distinctly different because proper nouns have no definition and that's precisely why they are not included in most dictionaries.

"U.S. Congress" is a proper noun. Are you telling me there is no definition for "U.S. Congress?" When is it expected to change and to what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

"U.S. Congress" is a proper noun. Are you telling me there is no definition for "U.S. Congress?" When is it expected to change and to what?

"U.S. Congress" is not a proper noun. It's two words; "U.S." is a proper noun, "congress" is a noun. In a hypothetical future it can change to "Chinese Congress", (if assuming they maintain a congress at all after invasion). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, metalslug said:

It is absolutely different and, as grammar goes, you really should know better. You're equating pronouns (he, she) with proper nouns (William, Bill) .

Won’t somebody think of the language!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

4 4