https://x.com/calleymeans/status/1916695341124006355?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
It's becoming more and more clear that we don't have enough distrust for the MSM.
"If you believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women's rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc. mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all." — Thomas Sowell
https://x.com/jasonjournodc/status/1916606254367269159?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Good stuff from VDH
https://x.com/rickydoggin/status/1916314894800195845?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
I know Maher is still a raging leftist, but occasionally he does make some sense.
https://x.com/its_the_dr/status/1916269957500797295?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
We know that the MSM cropped pictures from the popes funeral in an attempt to show that Trump committed a faux pas by not wearing a black suit. The broader picture made it clear that numerous people were not wearing black suits. Of course, Zelensky wasn't wearing a suit at all.
https://x.com/lungbarrow1/status/1916464784985276473?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Why did the gay rights movement succeed while the trans rights movement collapsed? Because they were fighting forGay rights asked for freedom: "Leave us alone." Trans activism demanded validation: "Affirm our inner identity externally." Freedom respects boundaries. Validation requires constant participation. They're not the same. fundamentally different things.
Gay rights respected that people could disagree or disapprove and still leave us alone. Trans activism treats mere disagreement as violence. Freedom tolerates difference. Validation demands uniformity. Different foundations, different outcomes.
Gay rights were won through careful, incremental persuasion. Trans activism demanded radical, sweeping change overnight, without democratic consensus. Societies can be persuaded slowly. They resist being coerced rapidly.
Gay rights were grounded in observable biological reality: attraction to the same sex. Trans activism is grounded in internal self-perception, unverifiable by others. Material reality builds stable rights. Subjective feelings do not.
Gay rights succeeded because it sought freedom under law, not compelled belief. Trans activism failed because it demanded emotional obedience. Respect for reality matters. Respect for other people’s minds matters even more."
I'm not sure that there is any hard data that homosexuality is "biological", but other than that this thread makes some good points and demonstrates the divide between the LGB and the rest of the alphabet.
"I love this quote from Cardinal Robert Sarah...... Our world no longer hears God because it is constantly speaking, at a devastating speed and volume, in order to say nothing. Modern civilization does not know how to be quiet. It holds forth in an unending monologue. Postmodern society rejects the past and looks at the present as a cheap consumer object; it pictures the future in terms of an almost obsessive progress. Its dream, which has become a sad reality, will have been to lock silence away in a damp, dark dungeon. Thus there is a dictatorship of speech, a dictatorship of verbal emphasis. In this theater of shadows, nothing is left but a purulent wound of mechanical words, without perspective, without truth, and without foundation. Quite often “truth” is nothing more than the pure and misleading creation of the media, corroborated by fabricated images and testimonies. When that happens, the word of God fades away, inaccessible and inaudible. Postmodernity is an ongoing offense and aggression against the divine silence. From morning to evening, from evening to morning, silence no longer has any place at all; the noise tries to prevent God himself from speaking. In this hell of noise, man disintegrates and is lost; he is broken up into countless worries, fantasies, and fears. In order to get out of these depressing tunnels, he desperately awaits noise so that it will bring him a few consolations. Noise is a deceptive, addictive, and false tranquilizer. The tragedy of our world is never better summed up than in the fury of senseless noise that stubbornly hates silence. This age detests the things that silence brings us to: encounter, wonder, and kneeling before God. Even in the schools, silence has disappeared. And yet how can anyone study in the midst of noise? How can you read in noise? How can you train your intellect in noise? How can you structure your thought and the contours of your interior being in noise? How can you be open to the mystery of God, to spiritual values, and to our human greatness in continual turmoil? Contemplative silence is a fragile little flame in the middle of a raging ocean. The fire of silence is weak because it is bothersome to a busy world.”
—Cardinal Robert Sarah
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1916181327893958755?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
The notion that throwing money at teachers improves outcomes seems more and more like bullshit. They do somehow find ways to avoid blame though.
https://x.com/rob_thabuilder/status/1916848199202922546?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Very simple. The LGB community was simply demanding the same rights as everyone else, nothing more, nothing less. The TQ+ demands special privileges for a small group of entitled men. The LGB community was just asking society to accept them as themselves, the TQ+ demands we pretend they are something they are not The LGB community wasn't demanding the rest of society lie to ourselves about something as fundamental as the sex of our fellow humans, the TQ+ demands that we ignore the evidence of our eyes and ears. The LGB community just wanted to be left alone to live their lives, the TQ+ demands that we constantly praise and celebrate them and center them in our daily lives non stop. It is a fundamentally narcissistic movement. At the end of the day, the LGB movement was a righteous demand for true equality, while the TQ+ is a privileged demand for special status. That's the primary reason one failed and the other succeeded."
Was just skimming this post and before going to the top, I caught the end of the "rights" section, where you questioned the biology argument as regards homosexuals. So I went to the top of the section to read the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I very much believe biology is always a part of most every aspect of what we are, and that's true of homosexuals as well. This is not to say it makes their "orientation" immutable or that there having been no intention behind it or that is is impossible to either overcome or to learn how to cope with the attendant urges and desires, but only that it's a factor. That is, how can it not be. In the same way, any urge or desire is also a matter of biology.
As to "rights" versus "validation", I would argue this is a defensive argument from pro-homosexual sources. The homosexual lobby indeed demanded validation and continue to do so. By seeking to be "left alone", they necessarily sought that others believe them to be no more or less moral than normal people and because of that, they should be left alone to live as they please.
They did not (in general...all my response refers to them "in general") "respect" those who disagreed with their sexual choices, but rather referred to them as "bigots" and "homophobic", a sentiment which also continues today. And they certainly don't respect "boundaries" as a few florists, photographers and bakers can attest.
Their "rights" weren't won through "careful, incremental persuasion". They were forced upon a non-consenting citizenry through judicial activism, particularly as it concerns their bastardization of the institution of marriage.
Again, there's no difference in the biological reality/internal self-perception between homosexual and "trans" people. The truth of either can't be measured by the rest of us and we're all to simply accept how the "truth" of how they view themselves as actual reality, rather than disorder, delusion or in short, mental malfunction.
In short, the homosexuals trying to distance themselves from the "Ts" are simply demanding that we accept their position about themselves as somehow distinct from that of the "Ts" while not being distinct at all. And regardless of which group of sexually disordered people is being discussed, I refer to Sowell's comment presented earlier. Neither side is content with the same rights we all have, but rather each has demanded special rights to which no one is particularly entitled. The only difference is that the homosexuals have been more successful in their distortion of the concept of "rights" than have the "Ts" to this point.
When I'm questioning the biology argument, I'm mostly referring to the lack of proof of a "gay gene" or some other biological explanation for homosexuality.
DeleteClearly there are people who like to have sex with others of the same sex, so they obviously exist. Yet I don't believe that there is a singular biological marker that makes one gay. I'd argue that urges/desires/etc originate in our thoughts before we tale action on them. Since I'm not a Naturalist/Materialist, I would argue that there is something else other than our biology that accounts for our actions.
I think that what the gay lobby wanted "validation" for was to be left alone to do what they wanted "in the bedroom". They wanted some sort of "spousal privilege" from an inheritance or medical standpoint. Obviously everyone would "validate" the existence of people who are sexually attracted to the same sex, because it's reality. While the Ts want to be validated in their fantasy. From the viewpoint of a secular society, gay people are largely the same as others when it comes to virtually every aspect of life. Child bearing is the only significant difference. To "validate" that gays should not be discriminated against in normal life situations makes sense from the perspective of a secular government. For those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's a different argument. Yet, do we not live in harmony with sinners of all sorts on a daily basis? Are we not all sinners?
I'd argue that the "homophobe/bigot" language is relatively recent, and did not represent the early days of the movement. I'd also argue that the fact that they've gotten more aggressive doesn't mean that it's always been that way.
The reality is that the Ts are demanding that everyone accept their delusions which contradict basic biology. They demand that others pretend that a man can actually become a women, and that everyone affirm their delusions publicly. You never had the LGBs demanding that we use certain pronouns and the rest of the T bullshit.
Of course the LGBs are trying to distance themselves from the Ts, because it's an "alliance" that was forced on them by outsiders. Even if you look at the extremely vile behavior at "pride" events, it's mostly the fringe folx. The ones looking to shock.
Do I agree that homosexuality is sinful, yes. Is it any more sinful than any other form of sex outside of marriage, no. The problem is that it's not the government's role to monitor or punish sin. The government role is to treat people equally under the law.
The point remains, that the LGBs are increasingly trying to distance themselves from the rest of the alphabet, and the rest of the alphabet is desperate to force the LGBs into having sex with them.
It's an interesting microcosm of how the left forces groups together, even though they are diametrically opposed.
"When I'm questioning the biology argument, I'm mostly referring to the lack of proof of a "gay gene" or some other biological explanation for homosexuality."
DeleteIndeed, nothing specific has been found. Some studies seem unequivocally insisting no such gene exists, while others seem to point to rather obscure indications there's some biology behind it. I don't think biology matters to how one responds to urges, but only that I believe it's nonetheless the consequence of something biological, even if that consequence is dysfunction, disorder or defect.
As to whether our thoughts are an action in and of themselves or a reaction to something else, I'd argue one's biology plays a role in whether or not we're likely to be open to that which is clearly in conflict with our design. But this all gets into that which is so speculative as to be just another "chicken/egg" debate.
"I think that what the gay lobby wanted "validation" for was to be left alone to do what they wanted "in the bedroom"."
Are you suggesting, then, they sought to validate they were indeed entitled to what they wanted? I was suggesting they wanted to validate that their "orientation" was...uh...valid. That is was no different than heterosexuality, or at least morally equal. They could've, and I think were, validating they had a right to the notion of two adults consenting to indulge their sexual desire for each other, but that's also seeking to validate that it was moral and normal.
Again, it becomes somewhat a semantic thing, none of which addresses whether or not their arguments were indeed valid beyond those rights they already had. Antonin Scalia argued that the state has a right to regulate even sexual behaviors, to regard some as morally acceptable and other not. We still largely reject prostitution and polygamy, both of which can demand a "validation" of their rights on the very same grounds, which is what the trannies do. I don't see they two as being distinct as regards "fantasy". Both regard their self-identity as factual and beyond anyone else daring to demand they reject what they choose to continue believing about themselves, thereby seeking validation of their self-identities as equally true as the natural and biological truth of their physical beings. It seems clear to me that both are dealing with mental delusion.
It's not a matter of pronouns, but simply that each makes demands no one is obliged to accommodate, though too many were willing back in the day to accommodate the "gays". I wouldn't take any wagers on whether or the not the trans-types will be equally successful at some point, given the depravity of mankind in general.
The alliance of the Ts with the LGBs was by invitation. When the latter chose to push their narrative, it welcomed any who chose to adopt that same narrative tailored for their own purposes.
All crimes now prohibited by government are sins. The question is whether or not a given sin is such that government can argue for prohibiting it. It is said that government responds to behaviors by ignoring, enabling or outlawing them. The range of behaviors which make up the LGBTQ++++ community should never be enabled by government, but I don't think they should be ignored. Whether they're outlawed or not is not beyond their authority, given a variety of sexual behaviors remain so...each of which has proponents who argue for the same recognition/acceptance as homosexuality and generally on the same basis.
"The point remains, that the LGBs are increasingly trying to distance themselves from the rest of the alphabet, and the rest of the alphabet is desperate to force the LGBs into having sex with them."
And I find it hilarious, ironic and poetic justice.
"It's an interesting microcosm of how the left forces groups together, even though they are diametrically opposed."
It's another case of the left causing problems and demanding others resolve them to their liking.
Biology unequivocally draws a line between being male of female, biology does not draw a line between straight and gay. If biologists find something definitive at some point, we can discuss it. But as you note, there is nothing definitive now. Yet even of there were, T is insisting that we ignore the biological reality in favor of a delusion.
DeleteI'm saying that, back in the day, what the LGBs wanted was to be left alone in the bedroom and to not be discriminated against outside of the bedroom. Once they got that, it should have been over. Instead it was hijacked by ever more extreme actors who've pushed beyond what was originally sought.
Yes, they were advocating for the "right" to engage in the sexual activity of their choice in private. Just like straight people. Strangely enough, (some) straight people engage in the exact same sexual acts as gay people. Are you advocating that those straight people be somehow discriminated against for their private actions?
Again, back in the day, it wasn't about agreeing with gays, just leaving them alone. That it's gone beyond that, doesn't invalidate the fact of how it started.
When a group demands that others affirm that which is plainly and demonstrably false, they've crossed a line.
Really, speeding is a "sin"? Crossing a border is a "sin"?
You're making a completely separate argument now. You're arguing that certain behaviors should be banned, which is an argument you can make but then you have to ban those behaviors for all not just for certain groups.
Consider it this way. If the DFL is spending time and money focusing on the Ts, to the exclusion of the LGBs, and if this causes the LGBs to splinter away from support for the DFL is that not a good political outcome? Likewise if the DFL support for the extreme environmentalists causes the labor unions to splinter away, is that not a good thing?
DeleteFrom a political sense, it seems as though any splintering of the disparate groups that compose the DFL coalition is a good thing. Even in it simply means they don't vote.
"If you believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women's rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc. mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all."
ReplyDeleteThis is why I love Thomas Sowell and have read several of his books!
Sowell is someone who needs to be more widely paid attention to.
Delete