The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Fad Phrase "The Conversation" Reflects the Feminization of Discourse
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Words go in and out of fashion all the time. For example, the phrase “the debate over” is fading out in favor of “the conversation around.”

My guess is that the change in prepositions is merely a fad. After all, prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.

On the other, the shift from “the debate” to the “the conversation” seems related to the on-going feminization of discourse (with “the discussion” in the middle in terms of masculinity vs. feminine).

Here are the first 15 examples that come up in Google when I search for “the debate over.” Notice the masculine flavor:

Chapter 7: The Debate over Ratification [of the Constitution]

The Debate Over Critical Race Theory

The Debate Over a Bill of Rights

The Politics of Culture and the Debate over Representation

The Debate over Ratification

The Debate Over Debates: Trump Campaign Pushes For In-Person Debate Next Week

The Debate Over Slavery: Antislavery and Proslavery

The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility

The Debate over the Origin of Genius during the Italian Renaissance

Why the debate over what counts as ‘infrastructure’ probably suits the Biden team just fine

The Debate over Women’s Roles in Public

The American Constitution and the Debate over Originalism

The debate over rational decision making in evidence-based medicine

A guide for conceptualizing the debate over Section 230

The debate over Covid-19 vaccine boosters and what to call them and whether they’re needed

In contrast, here the the first 15 Google offerings for “the conversation around:”

Shifting the Conversation around Sexual Harassment

The conversation around sexual assault

We’re changing the conversation around fertility

How You Can Open the Conversation around Mental Wellness at Work

Changing the conversation around disability

Change the conversation around support as a cost center

It’s Time to Shift the Conversation Around Ambition

Webinar: Normalizing the conversation around mental health

Reframing the Conversation Around Family Engagement

The Conversation Around Critical Race Theory is a Manufactured Danger

Changing the Conversation around Mental Health

Changing the Conversation around Mental Health Starts with You

How Does Twitter Shape the Conversation around Covid-19?

Raising the Conversation around Social Emotional Learning Skills

Op-Ed: Normalising the conversation around menopause in the workplace

Clearly, the latter are much more feminine and manipulative.

 
Hide 194 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Journalists, politicians etc must be wary of using the term ‘debate’ when it is used in the collective sense over a matter of partisan national importance. The Freudian tendency to prefix it with ‘mass’ is a pitfall they must be aware of.

  2. My favorite junk word is “passionate”. Female popularized. “Conversation” means some dopey lefty wants to shove some nonsense down your throat. “Debate” means the same.

    • Agree: Gamecock, Mr. Anon
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Clyde

    Honey, we need to have a conversation about your drinking.
    I'm sorry I threw that at you, I'm a passionate woman!
    Calm down, why are you always so angry?
    It's how you said it!
    You'll never get women to like you if you don't stop that!
    ~
    We need to have a conversation about whiteness.
    Bouts of violence erupt at passionate, though mostly peaceful, protest.
    The Republicans rely on angry white men, anxious about a diversifying America.
    Man loses job after usage of insensitive terms uncovered in text messages.
    Ladies, it's time to stop dating racist white men.

    From each according to how she scolds her boyfriend, to each according to her midwit Salon article.

    , @Prester John
    @Clyde

    Mine is "so"...as in (Q) "Where is Hooterville?" (A) "So...Hooterville is five miles south."

    , @Gamecock
    @Clyde

    Agree. They don't want actual debate or conversation. They are indoctrinating you with their position; your position is not part of the debate or conversation.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Clyde


    My favorite junk word is “passionate”. Female popularized. “Conversation” means some dopey lefty wants to shove some nonsense down your throat. “Debate” means the same.
     
    Aye. And "fierce" - that's a popular word now too, on the distaff side. It is part of the cult of female bad-assery (which is all a load of crap). All women now are "strong", "passionate", "fierce", "brave", etc. One thing they are never described as is "feminine".
    , @Lockean Proviso
    @Clyde

    "Raising awareness" used to be the term favored by dopey lefties shoving nonsense, now it is indeed the one-sided 'conversation.'

  3. And in conversations, you really can’t bring up unpleasant facts.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Redneck farmer

    We're going to have a conversation.

    Translation:

    A conclusion that fits our ideals has been pre-determined and we will go over pre-selected arguments that support the conclusion while making it socially unacceptable to prevent counter arguments.

  4. Anon[361] • Disclaimer says:

    You’ve screwed up the ENTIRE discussion. A “debate” is a well recognized EVENT in a public forum. If you ain’t got 2 Speakers, each with a well defined position on the SAME topic, whatever they’re doing is not/was not a “debate”.

    For big issues (e.g., racial preferences in hiring), the 2 Speakers may speak not only at different times, but on different days. But to constitute a “debate” each Speaker MUST define the key points of his position and attack what he believes are the key points in his opponent’s position.

    If the speakers simply make unrelated statements on related topics, this is NOT a debate.

    The problems are created by Commentators who insist on using fancy sounding words (e.g., “debate”) to make the Commentator’s commentary SOUND significant.

    • Thanks: Corvinus
  5. Whatever happened to “problematic” ?

    • Agree: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Clyde
    @anonymous


    Whatever happened to “problematic” ?
     
    "Problematical" trumped it, ran it out of town. Those are two words deplorables never use. Lawyers and wokistas like them. A twitter search show the types who use them >>> https://twitter.com/search?q=Problematical&src=typed_query&f=top

    The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions — they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    So, so true. Our mass entertainment, TV, movies, have gone Fem in language and plots. Ye old action and spy movies were good, now are unwatchable. The male actors are soft and non-convincing

    Replies: @Clyde, @Jack Armstrong

    , @Mr. Anon
    @anonymous


    Whatever happened to “problematic”?
     
    It became problematic, and had to be cancelled.
    , @Change that Matters
    @anonymous

    "Problematize" had a good run for a while.

    As in, "Problematization is a critical thinking and pedagogical dialogue or process and may be considered demythicisation."

  6. “Conversation” is just the prelude to Diktat, in my experience.

    • Agree: Muggles, HammerJack
  7. • LOL: J1234, HammerJack
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    @Henry's Cat

    Thinkin' about it. Elvis blew the sixties. Missing in action. Too bad.

    Elvis is the 50's and rococo, semi rural 70's.

  8. Anonymous[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clyde
    My favorite junk word is "passionate". Female popularized. "Conversation" means some dopey lefty wants to shove some nonsense down your throat. "Debate" means the same.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Gamecock, @Mr. Anon, @Lockean Proviso

    Honey, we need to have a conversation about your drinking.
    I’m sorry I threw that at you, I’m a passionate woman!
    Calm down, why are you always so angry?
    It’s how you said it!
    You’ll never get women to like you if you don’t stop that!
    ~
    We need to have a conversation about whiteness.
    Bouts of violence erupt at passionate, though mostly peaceful, protest.
    The Republicans rely on angry white men, anxious about a diversifying America.
    Man loses job after usage of insensitive terms uncovered in text messages.
    Ladies, it’s time to stop dating racist white men.

    From each according to how she scolds her boyfriend, to each according to her midwit Salon article.

  9. How about ‘Yammering’ ?

    • LOL: Rob McX
  10. Another: some people use the word “issue” when they mean “problem” …
    A problem is something to be tackled, solved, or fixed.
    An issue is something to be talked about (sometimes endlessly), and decided.

    • Agree: Mr. Anon
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Herp McDerp

    Agreed, Mr. McDerp. "Issue" has been used for "problem" for 30 years. In the corporate world, the word is "challenge". "No, see, we don't use negative words like that. So, you have a challenge then?" "No, I quit - you all have a big fucking problem!"

    Replies: @Seneca44, @Herp McDerp

    , @Art Deco
    @Herp McDerp

    An old co-worker of mine: "I like problems much better than I do issues. Problems have discrete solutions. Issues go on and on".

    , @Dube
    @Herp McDerp

    ... some people use the word “issue” when they mean “problem” …
    A problem is something to be tackled, solved, or fixed.
    An issue is something to be talked about (sometimes endlessly), and decided.


    Yes, allow me to wonk it. "Issue" is short for the point at issue in a disagreement. E.g., A says, "Too long," B says, "Too short." The point at issue is the acceptability of the length. That is to define the issue, a service in clarification.

    To raise an issue - a point of disagreement - might be a problem, but to define an issue is a service to all sides.

  11. That’s because in a debate there is generally a winner and a loser, and both sides are allowed to present evidence to bolster their case.

    Conversation, on the other hand, is more about feelings. Ironically, when the modern left wants to have a conversation with you about one of their pet issues, they mean that they want to speak and they want you to listen and agree. They are not interested in a back-and-forth.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
    @ScarletNumber

    Yes. Also conversation is a misnomer. If somebody is telling you how it is they are making a statement or a declaration. Conversation goes two ways.

  12. Interesting observation of preposition trends. However, more insidious is pronoun manipulation — first person plural — used mainly by social justice types to fake “togetherness” and consensus on controversial issues and marginalize critics.

    As in: “our democracy”, “our” values, “not who we are”, “we need sensible gun control laws” etc.

    • Agree: S. Anonyia
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Stephen Paul Foster

    "However, more insidious is pronoun manipulation — first person plural — used mainly by social justice types to fake “togetherness” and consensus on controversial issues and marginalize critics. As in: “our democracy”, “our” values, “not who we are”, “we need sensible gun control laws” etc."

    Using your own logic, it also employed by the Alt Right in a sinister fashion. As in "our white nation", "our way of life is under attack", "pro-white" beliefs, "we must defeat the globalist Jew", etc.

    "Clearly, the latter are much more feminine and manipulative."

    More like someone's personal opinion, rather than absolute truth, about how to frame a discussion.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    , @Frau Katze
    @Stephen Paul Foster

    I can’t stand “this is not who we are.”

    The conversation about the word “conversation” takes place in leftist circles and consists of what names to call those who won’t join it. The list is pretty standard now. Use “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe” and so on.

    New words can be invented as required, using “-phobe.” Transphobe, Islamophobe.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  13. So… is this a good thing or a bad thing? Forgive my confusion but I read quite often here that testosterone is a bad thing and leads to men wanting to become women. So perhaps if we feminize our vocabulary we’ll have less high T men wanting to transition to women late in life, or something.

    Discuss!

    • Troll: Ian Smith
  14. Good noticing.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  15. @Henry's Cat
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWVMXLSS1cA

    Replies: @Daniel H

    Thinkin’ about it. Elvis blew the sixties. Missing in action. Too bad.

    Elvis is the 50’s and rococo, semi rural 70’s.

  16. Groovy analysis, hepcat!

  17. The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions — they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    Even without a byline, you can tell within a few sentences whether an author is masculine or feminine.

    It’s a big part of why so much official discourse feels so fake: all about feelings and niceties and euphemisms. Men say: no thanks, we need the blunt truth. Hence the appeal of truth tellers. I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?

    • Agree: Dr. X
    • Replies: @guest007
    @BenjaminL

    Women would counter that men, instead of focusing on blunt truth, spend most of their time BSing on a topic they know little about. See President Trump for a good example.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @BenjaminL


    I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?
     
    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.

    .

    (Her opinions on most issues were pretty aligned with mine, but apparently nobody, even on a 95/5 m/f ratio thread can say anything that puts women in a bad light vs. men.)

    Replies: @Anon, @Curle, @Reg Cæsar

    , @ginger bread man
    @BenjaminL

    I asked this a while back - https://www.unz.com/isteve/survey-time/#comment-4784642

    , @Coemgen
    @BenjaminL

    Ah, we're mostly graying slashdotters.

    The ancient by www standards slashdot poll for "my gender is" produced these results:

    My Gender Is

    Male ...................................48543 votes / 82%
    Female .................................3307 votes / 5%
    Somewhere in the Middle....7181 votes / 12%
    ........................................... 59031 total votes.

    https://slashdot.org/poll/406/my-gender-is

    plus ca change ...

  18. A conversation you have with someone is something you have to let them participate in. A debate with someone is something you can pull the plug on if they’re a moron and are making a stupid point. The shift to having conversations is a shift to ensuring that fat women get to talk, no matter how stupid their points are.

  19. The listed “debate” topics tend to assume a well defined “pro vs. con” posture. The topics of “conversation” on the other hand are framed as being about things that are assumed to be good or bad to begin with.

    For example, no one is going to be taking up the “pro” argument in favor of “sexual harassment” or the “con” argument against “mental health.”

    The rise of “conversation” may have something to do with female preference for consensus over disagreement. But it also has the effect taking certain viewpoints off the table. Your wife is more likely to have a “conversation” with you about why you are wrong and need to change, than a “debate” which allows the possibility that you could be right about something.

    • Agree: P. Cleburne
    • Replies: @Ray P
    @Hypnotoad666

    Freud himself offered a defense of not seeking mental health in every case in his 1917 Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis:


    Indeed there are cases in which even a physician must admit that for a [psychical] conflict to end in neurosis is the most harmless and socially tolerable situation. You must not be surprised to hear that even the physician may occasionally take the side of the illness he is combating. It is not his business to restrict himself in every situation in life to being a fanatic in favour of health. He knows that there is not only neurotic misery in the world, but real, irremovable suffering as well, that necessity may even require a person to sacrifice his health; and he learns that a sacrifice of this kind made by a single person can prevent immeasurable unhappiness for many others. If we say, then, that whenever a neurotic is faced by a conflict he takes 'flight into illness', yet we must allow that in some cases that flight is fully justified, and a physician who has recognized how the situation lies will silently and solicitously withdraw.

     

    Freud, S. Pelican Freud Library I pp. 429-30


    There have also been quite a few man-o-sphere types who have defended behavour described as 'sexual harassment' on the ground that it is a natural expression of the sex instinct especially by males.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland

    , @John Johnson
    @Hypnotoad666

    The rise of “conversation” may have something to do with female preference for consensus over disagreement. But it also has the effect taking certain viewpoints off the table. Your wife is more likely to have a “conversation” with you about why you are wrong and need to change, than a “debate” which allows the possibility that you could be right about something.

    Women value social stability over disagreement and this is especially true for issues like race or gender where unwanted truths can upend what they feel is an invested truth. Even if they can see that some of your arguments have merit they will still balance this against the stability of the order. Or in other words they will just nullify your rational arguments because they could disrupt everything they have worked towards.

    Men are more likely to challenge the ruling order and this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. A man takes a risk to challenge the alpha male and it is a heads or tails outcome. They have far more to gain/lose with such a challenge.

    Women don't have to take that risk and prefer a stable environment for their offspring even if it means the alpha male or ruling order can be unfair at times.

    Now all of this evolutionary baggage should of course be dropped at the university door but that isn't the case. Women have taken over fields that are related to race and gender with predictable results. Nothing is challenged and anyone that questions the egalitarian order must be racist/mean/ignorant/etc. This might feel just to the women but this leads to all kinds of problems. When feelings-based programs fail there isn't any questioning as to why that might be. Must just be racism of course.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland, @Alice in Wonderland, @Hypnotoad666

  20. @anonymous
    Whatever happened to "problematic" ?

    Replies: @Clyde, @Mr. Anon, @Change that Matters

    Whatever happened to “problematic” ?

    “Problematical” trumped it, ran it out of town. Those are two words deplorables never use. Lawyers and wokistas like them. A twitter search show the types who use them >>> https://twitter.com/search?q=Problematical&src=typed_query&f=top

    The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions — they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    So, so true. Our mass entertainment, TV, movies, have gone Fem in language and plots. Ye old action and spy movies were good, now are unwatchable. The male actors are soft and non-convincing

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Clyde

    Ye old 60s to 90s action and spy movies were good. The ones we get today from Hollywood are unwatchable. Their male actors are soft and non-convincing. How would a remake of the first Dirty Harry movie go? What a laugh this would be. No wonder Hollywood will not touch "Dirty Harry" with a barge pole.

    , @Jack Armstrong
    @Clyde

    Problematicalistic?

  21. What, no “igniting” or “scrambling”? Example : “Administrators are scrambling to protect vulnerable minorities after racist incidents ignite uncomfortable online conversations.”

    • Replies: @Herp McDerp
    @Elmer T. Jones

    “Administrators are scrambling to protect vulnerable minorities after racist incidents ignite uncomfortable online conversations.”

    "Evil conservatives seized on the issue and pounced on those who sought to defend BIPOCs' safe spaces."

  22. @Clyde
    @anonymous


    Whatever happened to “problematic” ?
     
    "Problematical" trumped it, ran it out of town. Those are two words deplorables never use. Lawyers and wokistas like them. A twitter search show the types who use them >>> https://twitter.com/search?q=Problematical&src=typed_query&f=top

    The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions — they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    So, so true. Our mass entertainment, TV, movies, have gone Fem in language and plots. Ye old action and spy movies were good, now are unwatchable. The male actors are soft and non-convincing

    Replies: @Clyde, @Jack Armstrong

    Ye old 60s to 90s action and spy movies were good. The ones we get today from Hollywood are unwatchable. Their male actors are soft and non-convincing. How would a remake of the first Dirty Harry movie go? What a laugh this would be. No wonder Hollywood will not touch “Dirty Harry” with a barge pole.

    • Agree: Travis
  23. “Shut up or I’ll have you jailed,” she conversed with Brian.

    • Agree: Cortes
  24. If progressives are in favor of something, such as reparations, then those progressives want to have a conservatives about the racial healing effects of reparations. If progressives are not in favor of something then they want to interrogate the subject such as interrogating the reasons in favor of gifted and talented programs. Also, if progressives do not like something, they will “stick a pin in it.” The last thing a progressive wants to do is debate something unless the panel includes more than two people and there is only one conservative involved in the debate.

  25. @BenjaminL
    The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions -- they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    Even without a byline, you can tell within a few sentences whether an author is masculine or feminine.

    It's a big part of why so much official discourse feels so fake: all about feelings and niceties and euphemisms. Men say: no thanks, we need the blunt truth. Hence the appeal of truth tellers. I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?

    Replies: @guest007, @Achmed E. Newman, @ginger bread man, @Coemgen

    Women would counter that men, instead of focusing on blunt truth, spend most of their time BSing on a topic they know little about. See President Trump for a good example.

    • Thanks: Corvinus
  26. What were once called lectures are now called conversations.

    • Agree: Herp McDerp
  27. Conversation is one of those words and phrases that set off my BS detector. Others include “reach out”, “concerns”, “stakeholders”, and the word “services” in the name of government departments, i.e., Environmental Services aka Garbage Department.

    A conversation with a libtard means I should shut up, listen, agree, and obey. Any back and forth or other viewpoint is neither wanted nor allowed.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Jim Don Bob

    "Conversation is one of those words and phrases that set off my BS detector"

    How about "Let's have a talk" or "We need to talk" or simply "The Talk"? Does not set off an alarm for you?

    Replies: @John Johnson

  28. @BenjaminL
    The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions -- they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    Even without a byline, you can tell within a few sentences whether an author is masculine or feminine.

    It's a big part of why so much official discourse feels so fake: all about feelings and niceties and euphemisms. Men say: no thanks, we need the blunt truth. Hence the appeal of truth tellers. I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?

    Replies: @guest007, @Achmed E. Newman, @ginger bread man, @Coemgen

    I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?

    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.

    .

    (Her opinions on most issues were pretty aligned with mine, but apparently nobody, even on a 95/5 m/f ratio thread can say anything that puts women in a bad light vs. men.)

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I’m a woman. I didn’t agree with many things Rosie said, or her harping tone.

    That said, she was attacked and ridiculed — even in absentia—, in ways it’s pretty rare to see a regular male commenter attacked (That Would be Trolling? Utu?) She did not seem to have Alden’s strength of mind either, so it’s no wonder she left. I wonder if she was here more to change the male commentariat’s collective mind than for the information. Good luck with that! But still, the treatment she received hardly does you guys credit.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Pericles

    , @Curle
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Nor on a 100% female thread.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.
     
    The most cartoonishly anti-male comment I've seen in over a decade here didn't come from Rosie, nor from Alden on one of her off days. (Alden and Jack D make many good comments, but are way too sensitive about their own demographics. Lighten up!)

    No, it came from Mr/Ms/Mx Camara, who reduced our entire sex to muh dick.

    The male sex can be sorted into two camps, those who think Loni Anderson was sexier, and those who know Jan Smithers was. Even Wikipedia agrees:

    Two generations of American males were judged by their answers to the question "Ginger or Mary Ann?" and "Jennifer or Bailey?", and both sets of women became cultural icons of their generations.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_Quarters#WKRP_roles
     

    Replies: @theMann, @Achmed E. Newman, @Sick of Orcs

  29. @Herp McDerp
    Another: some people use the word "issue" when they mean "problem" ...
    A problem is something to be tackled, solved, or fixed.
    An issue is something to be talked about (sometimes endlessly), and decided.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Art Deco, @Dube

    Agreed, Mr. McDerp. “Issue” has been used for “problem” for 30 years. In the corporate world, the word is “challenge”. “No, see, we don’t use negative words like that. So, you have a challenge then?” “No, I quit – you all have a big fucking problem!”

    • LOL: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Seneca44
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I usually find that “challenge” in CorpSpeak means fuck up.

    , @Herp McDerp
    @Achmed E. Newman

    That's reminiscent of an apocryphal story about General Curtis LeMay:

    Aide: "Sir, we have a problem ..."
    LeMay: "Hrrumph! We don't have problems here -- we have opportunities!"
    Aide: "Sir, we have an insurmountable opportunity ..."

  30. @Herp McDerp
    Another: some people use the word "issue" when they mean "problem" ...
    A problem is something to be tackled, solved, or fixed.
    An issue is something to be talked about (sometimes endlessly), and decided.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Art Deco, @Dube

    An old co-worker of mine: “I like problems much better than I do issues. Problems have discrete solutions. Issues go on and on”.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • LOL: Muggles
  31. @Clyde
    My favorite junk word is "passionate". Female popularized. "Conversation" means some dopey lefty wants to shove some nonsense down your throat. "Debate" means the same.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Gamecock, @Mr. Anon, @Lockean Proviso

    Mine is “so”…as in (Q) “Where is Hooterville?” (A) “So…Hooterville is five miles south.”

  32. @Hypnotoad666
    The listed "debate" topics tend to assume a well defined "pro vs. con" posture. The topics of "conversation" on the other hand are framed as being about things that are assumed to be good or bad to begin with.

    For example, no one is going to be taking up the "pro" argument in favor of "sexual harassment" or the "con" argument against "mental health."

    The rise of "conversation" may have something to do with female preference for consensus over disagreement. But it also has the effect taking certain viewpoints off the table. Your wife is more likely to have a "conversation" with you about why you are wrong and need to change, than a "debate" which allows the possibility that you could be right about something.

    Replies: @Ray P, @John Johnson

    Freud himself offered a defense of not seeking mental health in every case in his 1917 Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis:

    Indeed there are cases in which even a physician must admit that for a [psychical] conflict to end in neurosis is the most harmless and socially tolerable situation. You must not be surprised to hear that even the physician may occasionally take the side of the illness he is combating. It is not his business to restrict himself in every situation in life to being a fanatic in favour of health. He knows that there is not only neurotic misery in the world, but real, irremovable suffering as well, that necessity may even require a person to sacrifice his health; and he learns that a sacrifice of this kind made by a single person can prevent immeasurable unhappiness for many others. If we say, then, that whenever a neurotic is faced by a conflict he takes ‘flight into illness’, yet we must allow that in some cases that flight is fully justified, and a physician who has recognized how the situation lies will silently and solicitously withdraw.

    Freud, S. Pelican Freud Library I pp. 429-30

    There have also been quite a few man-o-sphere types who have defended behavour described as ‘sexual harassment’ on the ground that it is a natural expression of the sex instinct especially by males.

    • Replies: @Alice in Wonderland
    @Ray P




    There have also been quite a few man-o-sphere types who have defended behavour described as ‘sexual harassment’ on the ground that it is a natural expression of the sex instinct especially by males.
     
    Simply calling something 'sexual harassment' doesn't make it sexual harassment.

    Is smiling sexual harassment?

    Is talking sexual harassment?

    Is joking sexual harassment?

    Is offering to buy someone a drink sexual harassment?

    Replies: @Ray P, @Dmon, @Hypnotoad666

  33. anon[389] • Disclaimer says:

    Two Modes of Intellectual Discourse: Taking Everything Personally V. Debate as Sport

    https://alastairadversaria.com/2012/08/07/of-triggering-and-the-triggered-part-4/

    There is a form of education – increasingly popular over the last few decades – which most values cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus, inclusivity, affirmation, inoffensiveness, sensitivity, non-confrontation, a downplaying of physicality, and an orientation to the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum (one could, with the appropriate qualifications, speak of this as a ‘feminization’ of education). Such a form of education encourages a form of public discourse within which there is a shared commitment and conformity to the social and ideological dogmas and values of liberal society, where everyone feels secure and accepted and conflict is avoided, but at the expense of independence of thought, exposure to challenge, the airing of deep differences, and truth-driven discourse.

    … Lacking a high tolerance for difference and disagreement, sensitivity-driven discourses will typically manifest a herding effect. Dissenting voices can be scapegoated or excluded and opponents will be sharply attacked. Unable to sustain true conversation, stale monologues will take its place. Constantly pressed towards conformity, indoctrination can take the place of open intellectual inquiry. Fracturing into hostile dogmatic cliques takes the place of vigorous and illuminating dialogue between contrasting perspectives. Lacking the capacity for open dialogue, such groups will exert their influence on wider society primarily by means of political agitation.

    https://alastairadversaria.com/2016/11/17/a-crisis-of-discourse-part-2-a-problem-of-gender/

    As social media changes the environment within which political discourse operates, the dynamics of the discourse shifts. Traditionally, political discourse occurred within the heterotopic arena of male agonism, a realm set apart from domestic and personal affairs, yet within which the wider reality of the society was debated. The relationships of this predominantly male group could be robust, but they were looser and aerated, involving conflict and dispute. They weren’t the more intimate and personal relations of closer social affinity.

    For the elite who participated in this discourse, the agonistic male discourse was counterbalanced by the mixed social realm of polite society, where feminine social virtues principally prevailed, relations were much denser, dispute would be discouraged, and the conversation was often a form of social grooming and positioning. This was a realm where women’s social leverage and skills could come to the fore.

    In Twitter, we are witnessing a collapsing of the traditional manly political discourse into a more feminine polite society, with considerable tensions on both sides. In dense societies, disagreement is a threat and conversation, while frequently demonizing and ostracizing other parties, struggles to deal with the sort of difference near at hand that rougher and more aerated agonistic discourse handles much more adeptly. The aggressive arguments of men on Twitter are taken considerably more personally by women (and by the men who care about them) and are generally perceived as far more abusive than they would be were they directed at men. On the other hand, many argumentative men chafe at the regime of politeness that tends to develop in social locations where large numbers of women are present.

  34. “Conversation” has more superficial gravitas than the real underlying “We need to talk.” (Meaning I need to talk and you need to agree).

    I’ve tiresomely kept noting the feminization of journalism, feelings over facts, and sadly not just by women. Both “debate” and “conversation” tend to appear when a commentary is just a grab-bag of gripes and resentments that cannot be distilled into a coherent factual headline or statement

    The sports world does have an analog of sorts — “We need to change the culture”

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Known Fact

    (I ran out of editing time on my last keen insight. Which now continues ...)

    We often now hear that a new coach is "working to change the culture" at Perennial Loser U or some hapless pro franchise. That is a squishy and feminine way of putting things rather than "We need to find some decent players and competent coaches, finally win some damn games and sell some damn tickets so we can make more money." Saying that the current coaches and players simply stink on ice would be "hurtful" and "problematic."

    So even in sports the language is becoming more subjective and feminized

  35. Anon[175] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    @BenjaminL


    I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?
     
    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.

    .

    (Her opinions on most issues were pretty aligned with mine, but apparently nobody, even on a 95/5 m/f ratio thread can say anything that puts women in a bad light vs. men.)

    Replies: @Anon, @Curle, @Reg Cæsar

    I’m a woman. I didn’t agree with many things Rosie said, or her harping tone.

    That said, she was attacked and ridiculed — even in absentia—, in ways it’s pretty rare to see a regular male commenter attacked (That Would be Trolling? Utu?) She did not seem to have Alden’s strength of mind either, so it’s no wonder she left. I wonder if she was here more to change the male commentariat’s collective mind than for the information. Good luck with that! But still, the treatment she received hardly does you guys credit.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    # 175, Rosie's problem was that she could not see that she is a feminist at heart and wouldn't admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism. At some point I simply asked her not to start "conversations" with me (possibly on the Audacious Epignone blog). She did pretty well in complying with my request.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Twinkie

    , @Pericles
    @Anon

    Perhaps her grant for fighting hatred online ran out.

  36. @Clyde
    My favorite junk word is "passionate". Female popularized. "Conversation" means some dopey lefty wants to shove some nonsense down your throat. "Debate" means the same.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Gamecock, @Mr. Anon, @Lockean Proviso

    Agree. They don’t want actual debate or conversation. They are indoctrinating you with their position; your position is not part of the debate or conversation.

  37. @Known Fact
    "Conversation" has more superficial gravitas than the real underlying "We need to talk." (Meaning I need to talk and you need to agree).

    I've tiresomely kept noting the feminization of journalism, feelings over facts, and sadly not just by women. Both "debate" and "conversation" tend to appear when a commentary is just a grab-bag of gripes and resentments that cannot be distilled into a coherent factual headline or statement

    The sports world does have an analog of sorts -- "We need to change the culture"

    Replies: @Known Fact

    (I ran out of editing time on my last keen insight. Which now continues …)

    We often now hear that a new coach is “working to change the culture” at Perennial Loser U or some hapless pro franchise. That is a squishy and feminine way of putting things rather than “We need to find some decent players and competent coaches, finally win some damn games and sell some damn tickets so we can make more money.” Saying that the current coaches and players simply stink on ice would be “hurtful” and “problematic.”

    So even in sports the language is becoming more subjective and feminized

  38. Well, there’s that hypothesis that BPA and other estrogenic chemical that leach into potable liquids stored in plastic containers is making us all more feminine.

  39. In a rarity I will defend all conversating women. You men have let women get the easy non debate victory for decades. What good many men do when the words get tough (or annoying) is scurry away. I get it is about keeping the peace on a personal level. Still it is a surefire means of victory for us. Now it is done on national level with “conversations.” If I were a gambling woman, I bet on men rolling away here as well. You and your male ancestors dug this hole.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Old and Grumpy

    Right, deference is a part of being a man with a family, and usually extends to men as a group deferring to women as a group.

    Women in a family want things, quite often without knowing why. If they don't get them, the kids tend to die or be crippled. Sometimes this is because the things are absolutely necessary, sometimes its because the woman kills the kids, usually indirectly. Women usually test for this "demand dominance" pre-marriage, one way or another, because they will need it to keep the kids alive during the marriage.

    Such tests are commonly mentioned in folksongs -- Betty and Dupree, Lady of Carlisle

    This sort of female sensitivity to conditions is common in mammalian species, and is one reason why getting wild animals in captivity to reproduce is difficult. https://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html

    The early anti-feminists, 1800s, were aware of this sort of capriciousness, and of the effect it would have on politics. The bulk of women around 1900 are said to have opposed votes for women.

    This deference to aggregate women's sensitivity and demands is not unusual in human societies, and can promote group survival when associated with resource depletion severe enough to hinder group reproduction. However, it has not produced results that favor group survival since the advent of large scale mechanized warfare in 1914. Further, large scale participation of women in politics has been associated in several cases with social senility (followed by radical transformation, such as conquest or stasis, of the societies). The large scale participation may well be an attempt to compensate for the failures of existing men's social structures, or may simply be from overconfidence due to a society's apparent wealth and longevity, but these are just guesses. See Duton's book on feminism.

    Men's deference to women may very well be an inherent characteristic of human society. Women do what women want to do or the kids die, and sometimes its "and the kids die". Not a lot of wiggle room there.

    You may say that this is "blaming women". Not so, it's just another reward matrix in another evolutionary game. However, if you insist, I'll employ a feminine argument and point out that your message strongly condemns men.

    , @Mr Mox
    @Old and Grumpy

    You and your male ancestors dug this hole.

    We learned centuries ago that the prize for winning the discussion meant sleeping on the couch.

  40. And the word feminization has replaced homosexuality.

  41. The “around” part is quite recent. “Conversation about race” was common from the 90’s into the Obama years.

  42. Sorry, Steve.
    You probably drove home an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT Point.

    I didn’t cogitate on its profundity.

    Got stuck here: The Debate over the Origin of Genius during the Italian Renaissance

    Wondered who the genius was here:

    Should we debate Botticelli’s perspective,
    or have a conversation about Venus’s fashion choices?

    In general, learned this about the Renaissance:

    The four characteristic features of the Renaissance period are as follows:

    ⚬ Renaissance characteristics include a renewed interest in classical antiquity;
    ⚬ an upsurge in humanist philosophy (belief in self, human value, and individual dignity);
    ⚬ and radical changes in ideas about religion, politics , and science. [sic]

  43. Having endless conversations ensures the legions of consultants and trainers around these issues will have perpetual opportunities for work.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Arclight

    But at least they’ll be creating synergies.

  44. My guess is that the change in prepositions is merely a fad. After all, prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.

    Correct preposition usage is a strong indication that someone reads a lot. At least, that’s what high school English teachers used to say. My pet peeve is when social media transforms misremembered rules by morons into new conventions. Like the odious “on accident.” An action is performed either “by accident” or “on purpose.” I first started to notice the “on accident” crap from female influencers about a decade ago. Now males use it too.

  45. I’m married to someone who leans left and whenever she has CNN or NPR on and they are referencing a conservative or the views of a conservative I can expect them to work “controversial” into the introduction.

  46. Seemingly irrelevant but totally relevant: the Ryan Carr tweet regarding Alec Baldwin, the Clinton non-connection to Alec Baldwin, green energy scamming, Buttplugging the Port of Los Angeles, the CDC mess, the Garland rape-enabling disaster, whites versus Asians, and saying nothing when having a conversation.

    The relevance: None of this crap can survive an honest conversation.

    Brief explanations under more tag.

    [MORE]

    Carr tweet: argues that the shooting happened as a predictable result of politically-leftist financially-greedhead producers cutting corners. I think his tweet is the essential explanation here. If half of it is true Baldwin is boned.

    Clinton non-connection: The woman Alec Baldwin shot to death was the wife of a lawyer at a firm which represented Hillary’s campaign in part of the Russia mess. That’s less of a connection and more a reminder, and useful as a reminder, that this octopus strangling our country is something like five thousand morons who all know each other, and who all rely on each other to get monstrously overcompensated fake jobs, and positions on each others’ boards. Like when in 2016 it was demonstrated that nearly everyone at CNN and at other news channels were the spouse or sibling of high or mid level Democrat party officials. How long would it take to einsatzgruppen five thousand millionaires, who don’t understand why they hired a real firearms expert in the first place, and who do not know how to check if a gun — a freaking revolver — is loaded? Answer, you’ll never einsatzgruppen them, that would require them to know how to use a shovel.

    Green scamming is those same guys using a government connection to guarantee business to their newest fake business, which does not actually help any environment outside the environs of their bank. Essentially “defense contracting” but for Gaia instead of defense.

    Port of LA: The entire crisis could have been avoided if a law school graduate or nidificated politico could have been made to understand what a truck driver is. They honestly didn’t even think about independent owner operators while they were trying to wokeshame Uber and Lyft. Barriers in communication build highways to disaster.

    CDC: Pay no attention to data from other countries! Forget that the internet exists (it probably won’t in a year)!

    Lawyers For Rape: Apparently Garland wasn’t even aware of the central story here. What a bullet we dodged keeping him off the Supreme Court. Remember when Jews were smart? Remember the standard rejoinder to parental fears that men in dresses in girls’ bathrooms would do something wierd? “No, that won’t happen.” The conversarion or The Conversation.

    Whites versus Asians: Whites are pretty much Asians who aren’t as good at math or drudge work, but who believe that honesty defeats power, and who thereby get innovation bonuses which propelled them above Asians at the top levels in the past. Asians are white people optimized for slavery by the lie of harmony, who think that if I point at the moon and say it is the sun, well, then it is the sun, because historically if they pointed out that it is the moon their entire village would be tortured to death. The selling point of the Asian way is harmony (and maybe not starving to death as often), and the selling point of the white way is beating someone who on paper should have won so yeah our way is better (and better for them). The honest conversation would make everyone better and happier. Censorship (and “having a conversation”) keeps the crabs in the bucket.

    Saying nothing: Read Owell’s “Politics and the English Language,” start noticing insubstantive communications (and reflexively rejecting dishonest structures), and you’ll — well, yes, you can’t enjoy movies or TV any more, but you shouldn’t anyhow, and the headache doesn’t really go away, but there’s alcohol and Aleve.

    • Thanks: Mike Tre, HammerJack
  47. it’s good steve kicked his addiction to masculine flavor. the power of the volcano demon.

  48. I guess most of you are right.

    But jeez. Everybody’s a linguist.

  49. prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.

    It’s even worse than that. Prepositions are somewhat arbitrary in any language, but people tend to literally translate from their native language, so, for example to a Russian speaker, “I went to the beach” becomes “I went on beach”.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    ...to a Russian speaker, “I went to the beach” becomes “I went on beach”.
     
    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/public-toilets-beach-public-toilets-beach-roof-covered-reeds-background-beautiful-natural-102797880.jpg



    Finnish has few if any prepositions; those 15 or 16 cases which scare people away take their place. Russian is more complex here; six cases times three genders gives you 18 possibilities to confuse.

    Finns have postpositions, though, used with the genitive which-- unlike Russian!-- is among the easier cases. Something "under the table" is "the table's under", pöydän alla. (However, stasis differs from motion. Drinking someone under the table, say, a Russian, would use pöydän alle.)

    This is so alien from Indo-European practice that Finns don't make many prepositional errors in English; they're starting from scratch. They make he/she errors all the time. Their pronoun, hän, doesn't distinguish.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jack D

    “I went on beach,” sounds to native speakers like squatting on the sand at night out of necessity when they hoped no one was looking.

    These things happen, and yes, many of us are familiar with that funny, Russian habit of eliminating the English article. My wife came from that part of the world, but she never, ever has or ever does make that stupid-sounding mistake.

    Hey, "I commented on blog!"

    This just sounds stupid to anyone from the Five Eyes -- or to any naturalized person, like my wife who makes fun of it, with half a brain.

    Replies: @Muggles, @Reg Cæsar

  50. It’s the same about global warming. You had a discussion about the questions of estimating different scenarios, trying to quantify effects and potential consequences and hard policy wonkery. Except for the denialism among libertarians for reasons of political implications, it would have been the most autistic of debates. It was such a classic ‘external’ debate over the ‘internal’ or ‘social’ debates that energise women.

    And now it’s been reduced to things like ‘Extinction rebellion’ and Greta Thunberg. No policy discussions no details, nothing just a moral crusade. Happily behind those forces there are real people working on it. (Contra the screaming about Trump, his effects on global emissions reductions was very minor, these things are already in motion)

    Will such efforts, though, prove more effective in producing emissions reductions?

    Another way to say is, women are 50% of the electorate, why not try to make messages designed to appeal to them rather than just bemoan the current situation? It’s not impossible. Appeal to the unfairness of Western countries being inundated with immigrants and not the other way around. Appeal to the fact that only North West Europeans have been shown to produce stable guilt cultures and others tend not to be fair in universal ways.

    Appeal the notion that collectively Westerners are trying to be nice and accommodating but no longer are sure or confident in their own rights or place, somewhat similar to women’s complaints about often not being naturally confrontational and how that often means they feel taken advantage of or like they’re overstepping when they’re not.

  51. Debate: Competitive discussion using facts and rhetoric.

    Conversation: Woman wittering on for a very long time in the direction of a glazed-eyed man.

  52. “DEBATE: Is The N-Word Racist?” I doubt that one would find: “CONVERSATION: Is The N-Word Racist?” Yes, “debate” is robust and “manly” and certainly not effete, effeminate, or womanly!!!!

    https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-n-word-racist?_escaped_fragment_=&_escaped_fragment_=

  53. A “debate” is a back&forth argument. You submit one perspective, the other side submits a diverging view. Both sides advocate for their particular respective viewpoint.

    A “conversation” is basically a Q&A. You ask questions and get told answers. It’s informative and inquisitive, but not contentious.

    In recent years, constraints around speech have tightened in the U.S. Many previously acceptable views have been placed outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Due to the increasingly narrow range of acceptable opinions, our public discussions now resemble a “conversation” (in which authorities tell us what we should think) rather than a “debate” (in which we say what we think).

    If you engage in “debate” and say something controversial, you get fired from your job. If you engage in “conversations” and ask thoughtful questions, you get promoted. This is why “debate” is declining, while “conversation” is on the rise.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @JohnnyWalker123

    This is the closest I have seen to my view.

    Debate implies two opposing ideas.

    Conversation may be many different competing ideas or One True Idea.

    A conversation about race, for example, can be both at the same time:

    1. There is a Truth
    2. What is the best way to change society to fit in the proper goals.

    Unfortunately, for some, even disagreement with the Woke religion as far to how to achieve a DEI society can be dangerous.

    , @Mr Mox
    @JohnnyWalker123

    A “debate” is a back&forth argument. You submit one perspective, the other side submits a diverging view. Both sides advocate for their particular respective viewpoint.

    "I'd like to have an argument, please."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&ab_channel=unmusedtails

  54. @Redneck farmer
    And in conversations, you really can't bring up unpleasant facts.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    We’re going to have a conversation.

    Translation:

    A conclusion that fits our ideals has been pre-determined and we will go over pre-selected arguments that support the conclusion while making it socially unacceptable to prevent counter arguments.

  55. The only thing better than a Conversation is an Interrogation. (Silent Jazz Hands)

  56. The new phrase/term that I find most interesting is “space.”

    I’m seeing that everywhere these days.

    “Deal space.”
    “Twitter spaces.”
    “Safe space.”

    What’s the deal with that?

    It’s a cool word that’s sort of useful, but also sort of BS. Hip young journalist/social influencer/intelligentsia types say it a lot.

    “Cannabis space.”

    • Replies: @ginger bread man
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I think space has replaced the words field, sector or industry in the 21st century economy. Instead of saying “I’m in the technology industry” people say “I’m in the startup space”. It’s usually for people who don’t really have defined careers or are in the gig economy and don’t have job security

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @JohnnyWalker123


    “Deal space.”
    “Twitter spaces.”
    “Safe space.”
     
    Yes, what’s the deal with that?

    It goes all the way back to Einstein's "space-time." Ever since then, the legitimate, real concept of physical space has been corrupted.

    "Space-time" is nothing more than a way to incorporate a purely mathematical 4th dimension into the physical 3 dimensions in which we live. It is mathematical, as any infinite number of "dimensions" can be, but it is not at all representative of our physical existence at any given moment. It does not at all represent space or geometry, but the public has been mislead that it does. It is purely mathematical.

    You do remember reality, don't you?

    "Journalists" and popular writers have always oversimplified their descriptions and stories for their readers. This is just another example.

    , @Lockean Proviso
    @JohnnyWalker123

    People who use cannabis tend to stare into space. They're spaced out, man.

    , @Herp McDerp
    @JohnnyWalker123

    The non-volumetric use of "space" was a characteristic verbal tic of people who were involved in est back in the 1970s. Then the cancer metastasized ...

  57. A debate would be two sided, not of the same opinion.

  58. I say: men have a Culture of Insult, as in “you gotta problem with that pal?”

    Women have a Culture of Complaint, as in “I can’t believe she said that.”

    Note that the civilized women of the American South soften the impact of their complaints with “bless her heart.”

  59. @Hypnotoad666
    The listed "debate" topics tend to assume a well defined "pro vs. con" posture. The topics of "conversation" on the other hand are framed as being about things that are assumed to be good or bad to begin with.

    For example, no one is going to be taking up the "pro" argument in favor of "sexual harassment" or the "con" argument against "mental health."

    The rise of "conversation" may have something to do with female preference for consensus over disagreement. But it also has the effect taking certain viewpoints off the table. Your wife is more likely to have a "conversation" with you about why you are wrong and need to change, than a "debate" which allows the possibility that you could be right about something.

    Replies: @Ray P, @John Johnson

    The rise of “conversation” may have something to do with female preference for consensus over disagreement. But it also has the effect taking certain viewpoints off the table. Your wife is more likely to have a “conversation” with you about why you are wrong and need to change, than a “debate” which allows the possibility that you could be right about something.

    Women value social stability over disagreement and this is especially true for issues like race or gender where unwanted truths can upend what they feel is an invested truth. Even if they can see that some of your arguments have merit they will still balance this against the stability of the order. Or in other words they will just nullify your rational arguments because they could disrupt everything they have worked towards.

    Men are more likely to challenge the ruling order and this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. A man takes a risk to challenge the alpha male and it is a heads or tails outcome. They have far more to gain/lose with such a challenge.

    Women don’t have to take that risk and prefer a stable environment for their offspring even if it means the alpha male or ruling order can be unfair at times.

    Now all of this evolutionary baggage should of course be dropped at the university door but that isn’t the case. Women have taken over fields that are related to race and gender with predictable results. Nothing is challenged and anyone that questions the egalitarian order must be racist/mean/ignorant/etc. This might feel just to the women but this leads to all kinds of problems. When feelings-based programs fail there isn’t any questioning as to why that might be. Must just be racism of course.

    • Replies: @Alice in Wonderland
    @John Johnson

    Nah, women are cowards. I say this as a woman.

    Consider the feminization of public transportation, where a woman is raped and no one helps her.

    Toxic feminity.

    Replies: @Jack Armstrong

    , @Alice in Wonderland
    @John Johnson


    When feelings-based programs fail there isn’t any questioning as to why that might be. Must just be racism of course.
     
    Exactly.

    There is no decision tree. They want what can't be. They don't want reality. They don't want an experiment where they find out the real answer. They want a specific predetermined answer nothing less.
    , @Hypnotoad666
    @John Johnson


    A man takes a risk to challenge the alpha male and it is a heads or tails outcome. They have far more to gain/lose with such a challenge.
     
    Quite right. In the intellectual sphere (hopefully not taking the metaphor too far), the old male ethos was that ideas became dominant through "trial by combat." The strongest idea won and got to lead until a challenger idea dethroned it on the field of rational debate and evidence. Academics took great pride in proving their colleagues wrong.

    In the female ethos, intellectual dominance is determined by consensus. And the consensus is maintained not by intellectual combat with the challenger, but by marginalizing and ostracizing those challengers with innuendo, gossip and politics.

    These are gross generalizations perhaps. But I'm certain the feminization of the academy and public discourse has been a huge factor in just about everything (mostly negative) going on in the country.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  60. “Conversation around” has an interesting preposition, and I don’t think it uses “around” arbitrarily. Talking “around” an issue has a specific meaning. It means you are not talking about the important issue. Talking “around” sexual harassment means you do not talk about the root cause. Excepting predatory harassment, the root of sexual harassment is that women require men to initiate, take all the risks, and that women can maintain ambivalence and plausible deniability of interest. Talking “around” sexual harassment means you do not discuss the core issue, that women do not say “no, thanks, not interested” because doing that would take away a source of power that they have.

    There is also the “meta” aspect of a conversation around critical race theory. Talking about the issue “around critical race theory means you do not discuss the issue of critical race theory. You discuss issues around it. Are the people against critical race theory being taught in middle school wearing unfashionable clothing? Are they strident? Do they discount your inarticulable lived experience? Those are all issues “around” critical race theory. None of them are discussions about critical race theory itself.

    To be somewhat charitable, a conversation “around” something might include things that touch on it, without being the core. A conversation “around” sexual harassment might include the fact that dress codes make some women feel they have to conform to workplace standards, whereas those same dress codes make other women feel undesirable when “conventionally attractive” women get more attention adhering to the dress code than they get while dressing slutty.

    At best, conversations “around” an issue only tangentially related to the issue and often focus on managing the emotions advocates feel when people disagree with them. Regardless of how diplomatically disagreement is expressed, one is still disagreeing, and how that made the advocate feel must be discussed.

    I think our culture would be much healthier if we had a conversation “about” CRT or a conversation “on” sexual harassment rather than “around” these issues.

  61. The baby of “pursuit of truth” is being thrown out with the bathwater of “adversarial” because too “divisive” i.e. prone to disturb the tender sensibilities of the ladies who power lunch.

  62. Most importantly “conversation” here means coercion. A group engaged in a monologue to preclude skepticism or debate of a given thing.
    While it’s driven by women not wanting competition, winners and losers, and emotional detachment, this is just the mechanism by which it works on the female psyche. Who’s manipulating this impulse?

    While it moves on “soft” female impulses–resistance to competition and emotional detachment, it’s purpose is killing off debate and skepticism of specific goals of the powerful. It’s aggressively feminine in that it’s instructive and condemnatory. It’s the transposed mothering instinct of a mass of delusional women being harnessed for power.

    I get the impression while our politics and society are poisoned with feminine thinking, it still isn’t the wimminz running things, but powering them, with the nuclear fuel rod that is their blunted reproductive instinct.

  63. After all, prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.

    A Finn explained how what she called “the passive you” kept tripping her classmates and her up:

    “You have to clean up the kitchen after every meal.”

    “Huh? Why me? That’s what the staff is paid to do!”

    • Replies: @Rob
    @Reg Cæsar

    The “royal we” means me. We are a small-r republican folk, however. We have the “managerial we” instead.

    When a manager says, “we have to sweep the floor.”

    That means “you have to sweep the floor.”

  64. @Achmed E. Newman
    @BenjaminL


    I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?
     
    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.

    .

    (Her opinions on most issues were pretty aligned with mine, but apparently nobody, even on a 95/5 m/f ratio thread can say anything that puts women in a bad light vs. men.)

    Replies: @Anon, @Curle, @Reg Cæsar

    Nor on a 100% female thread.

  65. @Reg Cæsar

    After all, prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.
     
    A Finn explained how what she called "the passive you" kept tripping her classmates and her up:

    "You have to clean up the kitchen after every meal."

    "Huh? Why me? That's what the staff is paid to do!"

    Replies: @Rob

    The “royal we” means me. We are a small-r republican folk, however. We have the “managerial we” instead.

    When a manager says, “we have to sweep the floor.”

    That means “you have to sweep the floor.”

  66. OT but worthy of debate certainly, somewhere.

    The country is going broke. The last 20 years have simply done us in. There is no way to recover from this – without the kind of sacrifice that is impossible to demand much less achieve. They might attempt to inflate the debt away which will destroy the middle class and the country.

    https://reason.com/2021/10/22/40-years-of-trillion-dollar-debt/

    • Thanks: Lockean Proviso
  67. Whenever I hear or read the term “conversation” used as this essay suggests, “I want to reach for my revolver” as the old Stalinist meme says.

    Yes, it is a female thing mostly. Or males who adopt that.

    It also seems directly related to women raising children, or teaching them in elementary school. One reason why our female-centric current reality is so screwed up is the absence of males in early childhood education. Especially since in male-absent households, young children need strong male role models. This is of course forbidden to say publicly.

    And how do most women deal with children, either in families or in schools? Talk down to them and order them about, tell them how to behave and threaten them (gently) with punishments for disobedience. Verbally abuse them or humiliate them publicly in front of others.

    Only when larger, older females lose control over disobedience do the male “cops” like daddy or the school principle (normally male) or if needed, sports coach, get called in for the dirty work.

    This is exactly how feminists and cultural anti male institutions and media treat men in general and especially those they wish to control. Women issue the threats and verbal warnings and when push comes to shove you call the men (or dykes in uniform) to administer the hard slaps or shots.

    All “conversations” in the current sense are basically this routine in some format.

    Of course nowadays this sometime conflicts with the numerous wild child “joggers” who have had no male discipline and thus are out looting, stealing, raping or murdering. If the men called in to stop the violence and crime act “too harshly” the schoolmarms of society cry racism and issue calls to punish the evil male peace keepers. White males only.

    When this fails to work (i.e. Seattle, Minneapolis, Oakland, NYC, et. al.) you have modern liberal dystopia. Then the commies (Woke leftys) have to resort to helicoptering in paper money.

    Didn’t work in Afghanistan, won’t work here.

    Of course this “conversation” I’m making now doesn’t occur outside of the confines of Unz.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Muggles

    Whenever I hear or read the term “conversation” used as this essay suggests, “I want to reach for my revolver” as the old Stalinist meme says.

    Yes, it is a female thing mostly. Or males who adopt that.

    In college I observed that there were three types of men that submitted to liberalism/feminism:

    1. Suckers. All freshmen can be naive to liberal bias but by the 3rd year you should have figured out that liberals are not seeking "the science" as they claim. Some guys never got it and truly believed that their liberal prof was trying to study race and gender as one might study chemistry.
    2. Guys that thought being submissive to women and around feminists would get them a girlfriend. It never worked. Even far-left feminists are still attracted to men that don't give an f about feminism. They don't want to be but their hormones don't care. They will date some prick jock and not even think about it. In their mind it is just all by chance.
    3. Gays/effeminate guys that identify with women. Self-explanatory.

    I would say #2 was the biggest group once you factored out apathetic freshmen that just had to pick up their required electives.

    What you end up with is an alliance against critical thinking. They all rally around what is really critical theory (blaming straight men, Whites, Christians, etc) and as a group affirm their ideas to be correct.

    I have been in these classrooms and it turns into creepy groupthink. I have wanted to raise my hand and point out that no one in the room is actually thinking. The professor presented some liberal ideas and everyone is repeating them. That is not critical thinking.

    But these women/gays/effeminate men/suckers really did believe they were thinking about reality. In their minds there is really nothing to debate because social scientists have already studied these problems and the books provide the results. Questioning what you are told means you are some weirdo that is either racist or doesn't get it.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Right_On
    @Muggles

    The original of your meme is: "When I hear the word culture ..., I release the safety on my Browning!" It's spoken by a character in a play by Hanns Johst, a Nazi sympathizer.

    Johst himself was actually very cultured. In 1943, he said, "The harder this war is becoming and the longer it takes, the more do we experience the clear certainty of the true value of culture. The intellectual and spiritual forces reveal their solace, their splendor, and their grace."

  68. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    it’s way deeper than that steve. you should read kaczynski and stop being so jewish.

    “the debate” and “the conversation” and “we as a society” are all diseases of civilization (like obesity) and its dependence on other people.

    if bezos had to survive in the amazon by himself…it would be a world that isn’t this one…he’d die in no time.

    grow up steve. embrace your inner Cynic/savitri devi..and drink some good beer or scotch for christ’s sake.

  69. @Jack D

    prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.
     
    It's even worse than that. Prepositions are somewhat arbitrary in any language, but people tend to literally translate from their native language, so, for example to a Russian speaker, "I went to the beach" becomes "I went on beach".

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Buzz Mohawk

    …to a Russian speaker, “I went to the beach” becomes “I went on beach”.

    Finnish has few if any prepositions; those 15 or 16 cases which scare people away take their place. Russian is more complex here; six cases times three genders gives you 18 possibilities to confuse.

    Finns have postpositions, though, used with the genitive which– unlike Russian!– is among the easier cases. Something “under the table” is “the table’s under”, pöydän alla. (However, stasis differs from motion. Drinking someone under the table, say, a Russian, would use pöydän alle.)

    This is so alien from Indo-European practice that Finns don’t make many prepositional errors in English; they’re starting from scratch. They make he/she errors all the time. Their pronoun, hän, doesn’t distinguish.

  70. @Achmed E. Newman
    @BenjaminL


    I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?
     
    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.

    .

    (Her opinions on most issues were pretty aligned with mine, but apparently nobody, even on a 95/5 m/f ratio thread can say anything that puts women in a bad light vs. men.)

    Replies: @Anon, @Curle, @Reg Cæsar

    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.

    The most cartoonishly anti-male comment I’ve seen in over a decade here didn’t come from Rosie, nor from Alden on one of her off days. (Alden and Jack D make many good comments, but are way too sensitive about their own demographics. Lighten up!)

    No, it came from Mr/Ms/Mx Camara, who reduced our entire sex to muh dick.

    The male sex can be sorted into two camps, those who think Loni Anderson was sexier, and those who know Jan Smithers was. Even Wikipedia agrees:

    Two generations of American males were judged by their answers to the question “Ginger or Mary Ann?” and “Jennifer or Bailey?”, and both sets of women became cultural icons of their generations.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_Quarters#WKRP_roles

    • Replies: @theMann
    @Reg Cæsar

    Well that is just ridiculous.

    Everybody knows the proper question is:
    Zoe, Inara, Kaylee, or River Tam?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Reg Cæsar

    Bailey.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Sick of Orcs
    @Reg Cæsar


    “Ginger or Mary Ann?”
     
    Beware the fury of a patient man, who answers, "Lovie Howell."
  71. @Jack D

    prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.
     
    It's even worse than that. Prepositions are somewhat arbitrary in any language, but people tend to literally translate from their native language, so, for example to a Russian speaker, "I went to the beach" becomes "I went on beach".

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Buzz Mohawk

    “I went on beach,” sounds to native speakers like squatting on the sand at night out of necessity when they hoped no one was looking.

    These things happen, and yes, many of us are familiar with that funny, Russian habit of eliminating the English article. My wife came from that part of the world, but she never, ever has or ever does make that stupid-sounding mistake.

    Hey, “I commented on blog!”

    This just sounds stupid to anyone from the Five Eyes — or to any naturalized person, like my wife who makes fun of it, with half a brain.

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Hey, “I commented on blog!”

    This just sounds stupid to anyone from the Five Eyes — or to any naturalized person, like my wife who makes fun of it, with half a brain.
     
    And yet New Yorkers (or NYCers, and their media scriptwriters) always say "on line" whereas regular Americans elsewhere would say "I'm standing in line, and waiting."

    So the "on line" thing is a dead giveaway. (Pro tip: you can quickly raise prices by 20% and they won't complain.)

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Herp McDerp

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Buzz Mohawk


    These things happen, and yes, many of us are familiar with that funny, Russian habit of eliminating the English article.
     
    Or sticking one in where it doesn't belong. Ivana made Donald "the Donald". Was that a Slavic overcompensation, or just German slang she'd picked up along the way?
  72. @BenjaminL
    The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions -- they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    Even without a byline, you can tell within a few sentences whether an author is masculine or feminine.

    It's a big part of why so much official discourse feels so fake: all about feelings and niceties and euphemisms. Men say: no thanks, we need the blunt truth. Hence the appeal of truth tellers. I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?

    Replies: @guest007, @Achmed E. Newman, @ginger bread man, @Coemgen

  73. What are men good for?
    After 23 “students” were arrested in 3 days for fighting at a Louisiana high school, local fathers formed Dads on Duty and serve as hall/recess monitors. There have been no fights since they showed up.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dads-spend-time-in-louisiana-school-to-curb-violence-among-students/ar-AAPQqhd
    Meanwhile in Lightfoot’s Chicago … they got rid of a lot of cops, after having gotten rid of cops.
    It’s almost like the conversation has itself.

  74. @JohnnyWalker123
    The new phrase/term that I find most interesting is "space."

    I'm seeing that everywhere these days.

    "Deal space."
    "Twitter spaces."
    "Safe space."

    What's the deal with that?

    It's a cool word that's sort of useful, but also sort of BS. Hip young journalist/social influencer/intelligentsia types say it a lot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHB5S9JsfGc

    "Cannabis space."

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Buzz Mohawk, @Lockean Proviso, @Herp McDerp

    I think space has replaced the words field, sector or industry in the 21st century economy. Instead of saying “I’m in the technology industry” people say “I’m in the startup space”. It’s usually for people who don’t really have defined careers or are in the gig economy and don’t have job security

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
  75. @JohnnyWalker123
    The new phrase/term that I find most interesting is "space."

    I'm seeing that everywhere these days.

    "Deal space."
    "Twitter spaces."
    "Safe space."

    What's the deal with that?

    It's a cool word that's sort of useful, but also sort of BS. Hip young journalist/social influencer/intelligentsia types say it a lot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHB5S9JsfGc

    "Cannabis space."

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Buzz Mohawk, @Lockean Proviso, @Herp McDerp

    “Deal space.”
    “Twitter spaces.”
    “Safe space.”

    Yes, what’s the deal with that?

    It goes all the way back to Einstein’s “space-time.” Ever since then, the legitimate, real concept of physical space has been corrupted.

    “Space-time” is nothing more than a way to incorporate a purely mathematical 4th dimension into the physical 3 dimensions in which we live. It is mathematical, as any infinite number of “dimensions” can be, but it is not at all representative of our physical existence at any given moment. It does not at all represent space or geometry, but the public has been mislead that it does. It is purely mathematical.

    You do remember reality, don’t you?

    “Journalists” and popular writers have always oversimplified their descriptions and stories for their readers. This is just another example.

    • LOL: JohnnyWalker123
  76. @anonymous
    Whatever happened to "problematic" ?

    Replies: @Clyde, @Mr. Anon, @Change that Matters

    Whatever happened to “problematic”?

    It became problematic, and had to be cancelled.

  77. English is, in some respects, an imprecise language. In a few other European languages there is a clear difference between discussion, debate & conversation.

    Conversation is just chit-chatting, give or take.

    Discussion is the most serious form. In short- discussion is a pro & con form of talk with general aim at arriving at the truth, if possible. If not, then it’s about clearing the positions to see where the differences are, and why it is not possible to find what would seem to be the truth.

    Debate is an inferior form, basically an effort to win the public or others over to your side. The aim of debate is not the truth, but winning.

    And that’s lost in English.

  78. Feminization of everything. The armorer who handed out the gun that Baldwin killed a woman with is a 24 year old pink haired LatinX tattooed dingbat cliche who admitted she “wasn’t ready” for the job. DEI kills again.

    https://celebhook.com/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust-armorer-thell-reed-daughter/

    https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/23/alec-baldwin-rust-gun-accident-armorer-head-handler/

    @cosmiccorpsehannah
    Dressed to impress and coming for your flesh😈 shirt from @themountainvvitch on ig ##altgirl ##gothgirl ##egirl ##colorfulhair

  79. My guess is that the change in prepositions is merely a fad. After all, prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.

    I don’t remember them being arbitrary in the past. There seemed to be agreed upon conventions which are now routinely ignored. However, just in the last few years, I’ve heard any number of (mostly younger) journalists seemingly use whatever proposition popped into their mind – saying things like “a robbery to a gas station”, which I would have described as a “a robbery of a gas station” or a “a robbery at a gas station” (depending on the context).

    It seems like most public language today is some form of bulls**t. It has been – as you observed – feminized, with terms like “conversation around”, cloaked in terms of bureaucratic obfuscation, like “issue” instead of problem (as other commenters have noted), and imbued with the threatening language of technocratic jargon: “the science is settled”, “follow the science”, “the wrong side of history”, etc.

    Orwell himself couldn’t have imagined a corruption of language so complete as what we see today.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Mr. Anon

    "“a robbery to a gas station”, which I would have described as a “a robbery of a gas station” or a “a robbery at a gas station”"

    I'd use "robbery of a gas station" when the robber robbed the gas station's money and "robbery at a gas station" when the robber robbed a customer's money.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Pericles

    , @Cortes
    @Mr. Anon

    “ robbery to a gas station” sounds like the mother tongue is Spanish: “robbery at a gas station” would be okay in British English.

    (I used to make some money doing technical translation: prepositions are the stuff of nightmares.)

  80. Anon[242] • Disclaimer says:

    OT:

    Congrats guys. You did it. You got the mean man out of office. Country is so much better off now.

    “Border Patrol agents apprehended a total of 1,666,167 illegal immigrants along the southwest border in fiscal 2021 – breaking all records since 1925 after the agency was formed (when 22,199 illegal aliens were arrested).”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/all-records-shattered-after-17-million-illegal-immigrants-arrested-southern-border

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    Are you nuts? There is not a commenter on here besides Jonathan Mason, OK maybe Paleo Liberal too, who voted for Joe Biden.

    Truth did not show up to the polls, as they didn't offer him free fried chicken this time.

  81. @Clyde
    My favorite junk word is "passionate". Female popularized. "Conversation" means some dopey lefty wants to shove some nonsense down your throat. "Debate" means the same.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Gamecock, @Mr. Anon, @Lockean Proviso

    My favorite junk word is “passionate”. Female popularized. “Conversation” means some dopey lefty wants to shove some nonsense down your throat. “Debate” means the same.

    Aye. And “fierce” – that’s a popular word now too, on the distaff side. It is part of the cult of female bad-assery (which is all a load of crap). All women now are “strong”, “passionate”, “fierce”, “brave”, etc. One thing they are never described as is “feminine”.

    • Agree: Jack Armstrong
  82. @ScarletNumber
    That's because in a debate there is generally a winner and a loser, and both sides are allowed to present evidence to bolster their case.

    Conversation, on the other hand, is more about feelings. Ironically, when the modern left wants to have a conversation with you about one of their pet issues, they mean that they want to speak and they want you to listen and agree. They are not interested in a back-and-forth.

    Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard

    Yes. Also conversation is a misnomer. If somebody is telling you how it is they are making a statement or a declaration. Conversation goes two ways.

  83. I haven’t read the comments yet but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Buffalo Joe

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

    Replies: @Jack Armstrong

    , @Muggles
    @Buffalo Joe


    but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.
     
    "No debate, comrade, just mandate..."

    Replies: @Travis

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Buffalo Joe


    I haven’t read the comments yet but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.
     
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JGDWFrH8ZS8
    , @Mike Tre
    @Buffalo Joe

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9662126-3x2-700x467.jpg

  84. @Buffalo Joe
    I haven't read the comments yet but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Muggles, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    • Replies: @Jack Armstrong
    @Stan Adams

    According at the interwebs Ameena Ruffin (the fat one) is a debate teacher on the Success Academy into New York City! Go girl!


    https://www.arounddeal.com/profile/ameena-ruffin/p2hqmdsepi/

    Current Workplace
    Success Academy Charter Schools
    Location
    United States

    Industry
    Education Management

    Description
    Located in New York City, We are reversing the opportunity gap for thousands of New York City children. We currently have openings in our schools and network office. We encourage you to have a look at our current job openings and consider applying! #HiringNow Success Academy is a fast-paced, leading-edge organization working boldly and urgently to overturn the vast educational inequities that block opportunity for too many children. A network of 47 public charter schools serving 18,000 K-12 students in some of New York City’s most underserved neighborhoods, we are nationally recognized for our groundbreaking, whole-child school model and outstanding academic results. As innovators and thought leaders, we share our curriculum and model with educators across the country and advocate to change public policies that prevent children and families from having access to great public schools.
     
    I’d like for think that she’s hanging out on April Hathcock (https://twitter.com/AprilHathcock) America’s Wokest Librarian. :)
  85. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jack D

    “I went on beach,” sounds to native speakers like squatting on the sand at night out of necessity when they hoped no one was looking.

    These things happen, and yes, many of us are familiar with that funny, Russian habit of eliminating the English article. My wife came from that part of the world, but she never, ever has or ever does make that stupid-sounding mistake.

    Hey, "I commented on blog!"

    This just sounds stupid to anyone from the Five Eyes -- or to any naturalized person, like my wife who makes fun of it, with half a brain.

    Replies: @Muggles, @Reg Cæsar

    Hey, “I commented on blog!”

    This just sounds stupid to anyone from the Five Eyes — or to any naturalized person, like my wife who makes fun of it, with half a brain.

    And yet New Yorkers (or NYCers, and their media scriptwriters) always say “on line” whereas regular Americans elsewhere would say “I’m standing in line, and waiting.”

    So the “on line” thing is a dead giveaway. (Pro tip: you can quickly raise prices by 20% and they won’t complain.)

    • Agree: Herp McDerp
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Muggles

    New York City-ers, are not Americans. Read our history. They never have been.

    BTW, this might as well be a good enough time to state that they do not produce anything needed by America. They all work in office buildings we all -- until now -- have looked up to without questiong exactly what all those people do up there.

    , @Herp McDerp
    @Muggles

    NASA types have a similar shibboleth: "on orbit" rather than "in orbit."

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  86. @Buffalo Joe
    I haven't read the comments yet but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Muggles, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.

    “No debate, comrade, just mandate…”

    • Replies: @Travis
    @Muggles

    no more debates, no need for congress to pass legislation, everything is now mandated by the Executive branches of our Governments. No more need for state legislatures or congress. Just executive orders mandating compliance or lose your job.

    Steve stopped promoting the vaccines when he realized they are not 90% effective. Efficacy collapses after 6 months...yet he has failed to discuss the boosters ? Why has he failed to discuss the boosters ? Is Steve waiting for the Booster efficacy studies before he starts telling us to get a third dose ? Hard to have the data when we have no control group in the study and nobody over the age of 55 in the studies. He must realize the studies were bogus by now. He was hoodwinked because he trusted the "science". The same scientists who promote equity and deny that race exists he trusted with our lives.

    Steve no longer talks about excess deaths, yet excess deaths in 2021 are higher than 2020 even after 75% of adults have been vaccinated. I wonder if he realizes we have been scammed yet but is too embarrassed to discuss the harm caused to our nation from the lockdowns and mandates.

    I know it is difficult to admit when you are wrong.The vaccines failed to stop the spread. They failed to reduce hospitalizations. They failed to get America back to normal. Children are still forced to wear masks (even if they are vaccinated). And soon the boosters will be mandated here, like they are in Israel for a disease that has a fatality rate of 0.2% for Americans under the age of 70. Yet young cops, nurses and soldiers are now being fired for not getting vaccinated with a vaccine which does not prevent illness nor reduce the spread of the virus.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Muggles

  87. Having a conversation about school funding means the range of opinion is limited to whether taxes should go up or WAY up.

  88. @JohnnyWalker123
    A "debate" is a back&forth argument. You submit one perspective, the other side submits a diverging view. Both sides advocate for their particular respective viewpoint.

    A "conversation" is basically a Q&A. You ask questions and get told answers. It's informative and inquisitive, but not contentious.

    In recent years, constraints around speech have tightened in the U.S. Many previously acceptable views have been placed outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Due to the increasingly narrow range of acceptable opinions, our public discussions now resemble a "conversation" (in which authorities tell us what we should think) rather than a "debate" (in which we say what we think).

    If you engage in "debate" and say something controversial, you get fired from your job. If you engage in "conversations" and ask thoughtful questions, you get promoted. This is why "debate" is declining, while "conversation" is on the rise.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @Mr Mox

    This is the closest I have seen to my view.

    Debate implies two opposing ideas.

    Conversation may be many different competing ideas or One True Idea.

    A conversation about race, for example, can be both at the same time:

    1. There is a Truth
    2. What is the best way to change society to fit in the proper goals.

    Unfortunately, for some, even disagreement with the Woke religion as far to how to achieve a DEI society can be dangerous.

  89. @Muggles
    Whenever I hear or read the term "conversation" used as this essay suggests, "I want to reach for my revolver" as the old Stalinist meme says.

    Yes, it is a female thing mostly. Or males who adopt that.

    It also seems directly related to women raising children, or teaching them in elementary school. One reason why our female-centric current reality is so screwed up is the absence of males in early childhood education. Especially since in male-absent households, young children need strong male role models. This is of course forbidden to say publicly.

    And how do most women deal with children, either in families or in schools? Talk down to them and order them about, tell them how to behave and threaten them (gently) with punishments for disobedience. Verbally abuse them or humiliate them publicly in front of others.

    Only when larger, older females lose control over disobedience do the male "cops" like daddy or the school principle (normally male) or if needed, sports coach, get called in for the dirty work.

    This is exactly how feminists and cultural anti male institutions and media treat men in general and especially those they wish to control. Women issue the threats and verbal warnings and when push comes to shove you call the men (or dykes in uniform) to administer the hard slaps or shots.

    All "conversations" in the current sense are basically this routine in some format.

    Of course nowadays this sometime conflicts with the numerous wild child "joggers" who have had no male discipline and thus are out looting, stealing, raping or murdering. If the men called in to stop the violence and crime act "too harshly" the schoolmarms of society cry racism and issue calls to punish the evil male peace keepers. White males only.

    When this fails to work (i.e. Seattle, Minneapolis, Oakland, NYC, et. al.) you have modern liberal dystopia. Then the commies (Woke leftys) have to resort to helicoptering in paper money.

    Didn't work in Afghanistan, won't work here.

    Of course this "conversation" I'm making now doesn't occur outside of the confines of Unz.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Right_On

    Whenever I hear or read the term “conversation” used as this essay suggests, “I want to reach for my revolver” as the old Stalinist meme says.

    Yes, it is a female thing mostly. Or males who adopt that.

    In college I observed that there were three types of men that submitted to liberalism/feminism:

    1. Suckers. All freshmen can be naive to liberal bias but by the 3rd year you should have figured out that liberals are not seeking “the science” as they claim. Some guys never got it and truly believed that their liberal prof was trying to study race and gender as one might study chemistry.
    2. Guys that thought being submissive to women and around feminists would get them a girlfriend. It never worked. Even far-left feminists are still attracted to men that don’t give an f about feminism. They don’t want to be but their hormones don’t care. They will date some prick jock and not even think about it. In their mind it is just all by chance.
    3. Gays/effeminate guys that identify with women. Self-explanatory.

    I would say #2 was the biggest group once you factored out apathetic freshmen that just had to pick up their required electives.

    What you end up with is an alliance against critical thinking. They all rally around what is really critical theory (blaming straight men, Whites, Christians, etc) and as a group affirm their ideas to be correct.

    I have been in these classrooms and it turns into creepy groupthink. I have wanted to raise my hand and point out that no one in the room is actually thinking. The professor presented some liberal ideas and everyone is repeating them. That is not critical thinking.

    But these women/gays/effeminate men/suckers really did believe they were thinking about reality. In their minds there is really nothing to debate because social scientists have already studied these problems and the books provide the results. Questioning what you are told means you are some weirdo that is either racist or doesn’t get it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @John Johnson

    Indeed, the end result is a decided lack of critical thinking. People here typically rally around platitudes like "anti-white", "Jewish conspiracy", and "race realism" and as a group affirm their ideas to be unilaterally correct.

    I have borne witness to the phenomenon on this fine opinion webzine known as confirmation bias. I point out and NOTICE that a number of posters are not really engaging in critical thinking, especially when they regurgitate "Fake News" to any and all counter assertions to their prescribed tin cup narratives.

    And some people here truly believe they were thinking about reality. In their minds, there is really nothing to debate (or is it converse) because iSteve has already recognized patterns for them through his authoritative lecture lens. Questioning what is being said through reasoning and evidence will inevitable lead unz.com minions to unilaterally label the offender as "anti-white" or "a Jew" or a "hasbara troll".

    See how that works, JJ?

  90. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jack D

    “I went on beach,” sounds to native speakers like squatting on the sand at night out of necessity when they hoped no one was looking.

    These things happen, and yes, many of us are familiar with that funny, Russian habit of eliminating the English article. My wife came from that part of the world, but she never, ever has or ever does make that stupid-sounding mistake.

    Hey, "I commented on blog!"

    This just sounds stupid to anyone from the Five Eyes -- or to any naturalized person, like my wife who makes fun of it, with half a brain.

    Replies: @Muggles, @Reg Cæsar

    These things happen, and yes, many of us are familiar with that funny, Russian habit of eliminating the English article.

    Or sticking one in where it doesn’t belong. Ivana made Donald “the Donald”. Was that a Slavic overcompensation, or just German slang she’d picked up along the way?

  91. A debate is a publicly competitive activity, in which the participants and the public are explicitly aware that there is argumentation followed by a declaration or at least some sense of knowing who the winner and the loser are. So debates prominently feature not just arguments, but also evidence, e.g. statistics, etc. So, yes, this is a masculine activity.

    A conversation is supposedly communal and cooperative (and private), but, in reality, as it goes on, it becomes clear that there is a dominant party and a submissive party or parties (rarely are there conversations where all sides are equally participant and contributive), the determination of which is frequently made by posturing (body language) and psychological bearing rather than soundness of the arguments or presentation of evidence. When one wants to convince someone subtly, that is, without wounding the feeling of that person and engendering hostility, one does not say “Let’s have a debate,” but rather says soothingly “Let’s talk about it” or “Let’s have a conversation about that” (preferably over coffee and chocolate or tea and some cookies). So, yes, this is a feminine activity.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Twinkie

    Even college debates have been ruined.

    Both sides have pre-written arguments that they simply present.

    Points are given for style and not for ad-hoc responses. Can't have anyone looking the wiser.

    Topic questions reinforce liberal narratives.

    Does racism affect health outcomes?

  92. @Buffalo Joe
    I haven't read the comments yet but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Muggles, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    I haven’t read the comments yet but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.

  93. @John Johnson
    @Hypnotoad666

    The rise of “conversation” may have something to do with female preference for consensus over disagreement. But it also has the effect taking certain viewpoints off the table. Your wife is more likely to have a “conversation” with you about why you are wrong and need to change, than a “debate” which allows the possibility that you could be right about something.

    Women value social stability over disagreement and this is especially true for issues like race or gender where unwanted truths can upend what they feel is an invested truth. Even if they can see that some of your arguments have merit they will still balance this against the stability of the order. Or in other words they will just nullify your rational arguments because they could disrupt everything they have worked towards.

    Men are more likely to challenge the ruling order and this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. A man takes a risk to challenge the alpha male and it is a heads or tails outcome. They have far more to gain/lose with such a challenge.

    Women don't have to take that risk and prefer a stable environment for their offspring even if it means the alpha male or ruling order can be unfair at times.

    Now all of this evolutionary baggage should of course be dropped at the university door but that isn't the case. Women have taken over fields that are related to race and gender with predictable results. Nothing is challenged and anyone that questions the egalitarian order must be racist/mean/ignorant/etc. This might feel just to the women but this leads to all kinds of problems. When feelings-based programs fail there isn't any questioning as to why that might be. Must just be racism of course.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland, @Alice in Wonderland, @Hypnotoad666

    Nah, women are cowards. I say this as a woman.

    Consider the feminization of public transportation, where a woman is raped and no one helps her.

    Toxic feminity.

    • Replies: @Jack Armstrong
    @Alice in Wonderland


    Consider the feminization of public transportation, where a woman is raped and no one helps her.
     
    White Knighting is not based. Women are strong and fierce, they don’t need our paternalism.

    Replies: @Curle

  94. @Twinkie
    A debate is a publicly competitive activity, in which the participants and the public are explicitly aware that there is argumentation followed by a declaration or at least some sense of knowing who the winner and the loser are. So debates prominently feature not just arguments, but also evidence, e.g. statistics, etc. So, yes, this is a masculine activity.

    A conversation is supposedly communal and cooperative (and private), but, in reality, as it goes on, it becomes clear that there is a dominant party and a submissive party or parties (rarely are there conversations where all sides are equally participant and contributive), the determination of which is frequently made by posturing (body language) and psychological bearing rather than soundness of the arguments or presentation of evidence. When one wants to convince someone subtly, that is, without wounding the feeling of that person and engendering hostility, one does not say "Let's have a debate," but rather says soothingly "Let's talk about it" or "Let's have a conversation about that" (preferably over coffee and chocolate or tea and some cookies). So, yes, this is a feminine activity.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Even college debates have been ruined.

    Both sides have pre-written arguments that they simply present.

    Points are given for style and not for ad-hoc responses. Can’t have anyone looking the wiser.

    Topic questions reinforce liberal narratives.

    Does racism affect health outcomes?

  95. @Stephen Paul Foster
    Interesting observation of preposition trends. However, more insidious is pronoun manipulation -- first person plural -- used mainly by social justice types to fake "togetherness" and consensus on controversial issues and marginalize critics.

    As in: "our democracy", "our" values, "not who we are", "we need sensible gun control laws" etc.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Frau Katze

    “However, more insidious is pronoun manipulation — first person plural — used mainly by social justice types to fake “togetherness” and consensus on controversial issues and marginalize critics. As in: “our democracy”, “our” values, “not who we are”, “we need sensible gun control laws” etc.”

    Using your own logic, it also employed by the Alt Right in a sinister fashion. As in “our white nation”, “our way of life is under attack”, “pro-white” beliefs, “we must defeat the globalist Jew”, etc.

    “Clearly, the latter are much more feminine and manipulative.”

    More like someone’s personal opinion, rather than absolute truth, about how to frame a discussion.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    You are wrong, but that is fine.

  96. @Ray P
    @Hypnotoad666

    Freud himself offered a defense of not seeking mental health in every case in his 1917 Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis:


    Indeed there are cases in which even a physician must admit that for a [psychical] conflict to end in neurosis is the most harmless and socially tolerable situation. You must not be surprised to hear that even the physician may occasionally take the side of the illness he is combating. It is not his business to restrict himself in every situation in life to being a fanatic in favour of health. He knows that there is not only neurotic misery in the world, but real, irremovable suffering as well, that necessity may even require a person to sacrifice his health; and he learns that a sacrifice of this kind made by a single person can prevent immeasurable unhappiness for many others. If we say, then, that whenever a neurotic is faced by a conflict he takes 'flight into illness', yet we must allow that in some cases that flight is fully justified, and a physician who has recognized how the situation lies will silently and solicitously withdraw.

     

    Freud, S. Pelican Freud Library I pp. 429-30


    There have also been quite a few man-o-sphere types who have defended behavour described as 'sexual harassment' on the ground that it is a natural expression of the sex instinct especially by males.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland

    There have also been quite a few man-o-sphere types who have defended behavour described as ‘sexual harassment’ on the ground that it is a natural expression of the sex instinct especially by males.

    Simply calling something ‘sexual harassment’ doesn’t make it sexual harassment.

    Is smiling sexual harassment?

    Is talking sexual harassment?

    Is joking sexual harassment?

    Is offering to buy someone a drink sexual harassment?

    • Replies: @Ray P
    @Alice in Wonderland

    All of these have been construed as 'sexual harassment' in various situations by some. Generally, for feminists, if a male's behaviour toward a woman is specific to her being female it is sexist (he wouldn't behave like this to a man) and possibly sexual harassment if done with the intent of procuring sexual favours.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland

    , @Dmon
    @Alice in Wonderland

    As an employee of a large defense contractor, I was privileged to be one of the earliest recipients of formal anti-sexual harassment training (some 30-odd years ago next Thursday), and I can provide you with the exact verbatim definition of sexual harassment as stated in that mandatory class. To wit: "The perception of harassment is harassment".

    So there you go - everything is harassment as long as a woman decides it's harassment. It's pretty much like racism or anti-semitism - a quantum phenomena whose state of existence changes depending on whether it's noticed or not.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Alice in Wonderland

    If a woman doesn't appreciate the initial attention it is sexual harassment. But if she changes her mind and dates the perp voluntarily then it wasn't sexual harassment after all. If they break up acrimoniously, however, then it retroactively becomes harassment again. If they stay together and get married, then it is just a cute story about how "mommy met daddy" at work.

  97. Slightly off-topic, but saw and enjoyed the old movie The Conversation at least twice.

  98. @Jim Don Bob
    Conversation is one of those words and phrases that set off my BS detector. Others include "reach out", "concerns", "stakeholders", and the word "services" in the name of government departments, i.e., Environmental Services aka Garbage Department.

    A conversation with a libtard means I should shut up, listen, agree, and obey. Any back and forth or other viewpoint is neither wanted nor allowed.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Conversation is one of those words and phrases that set off my BS detector”

    How about “Let’s have a talk” or “We need to talk” or simply “The Talk”? Does not set off an alarm for you?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Corvinus

    For my BS detector to go off all I need is a representative of clown world to start a sentence with an emphatic and authoritative The

    honk honk

    Replies: @Corvinus

  99. @Muggles
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Hey, “I commented on blog!”

    This just sounds stupid to anyone from the Five Eyes — or to any naturalized person, like my wife who makes fun of it, with half a brain.
     
    And yet New Yorkers (or NYCers, and their media scriptwriters) always say "on line" whereas regular Americans elsewhere would say "I'm standing in line, and waiting."

    So the "on line" thing is a dead giveaway. (Pro tip: you can quickly raise prices by 20% and they won't complain.)

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Herp McDerp

    New York City-ers, are not Americans. Read our history. They never have been.

    BTW, this might as well be a good enough time to state that they do not produce anything needed by America. They all work in office buildings we all — until now — have looked up to without questiong exactly what all those people do up there.

  100. @John Johnson
    @Hypnotoad666

    The rise of “conversation” may have something to do with female preference for consensus over disagreement. But it also has the effect taking certain viewpoints off the table. Your wife is more likely to have a “conversation” with you about why you are wrong and need to change, than a “debate” which allows the possibility that you could be right about something.

    Women value social stability over disagreement and this is especially true for issues like race or gender where unwanted truths can upend what they feel is an invested truth. Even if they can see that some of your arguments have merit they will still balance this against the stability of the order. Or in other words they will just nullify your rational arguments because they could disrupt everything they have worked towards.

    Men are more likely to challenge the ruling order and this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. A man takes a risk to challenge the alpha male and it is a heads or tails outcome. They have far more to gain/lose with such a challenge.

    Women don't have to take that risk and prefer a stable environment for their offspring even if it means the alpha male or ruling order can be unfair at times.

    Now all of this evolutionary baggage should of course be dropped at the university door but that isn't the case. Women have taken over fields that are related to race and gender with predictable results. Nothing is challenged and anyone that questions the egalitarian order must be racist/mean/ignorant/etc. This might feel just to the women but this leads to all kinds of problems. When feelings-based programs fail there isn't any questioning as to why that might be. Must just be racism of course.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland, @Alice in Wonderland, @Hypnotoad666

    When feelings-based programs fail there isn’t any questioning as to why that might be. Must just be racism of course.

    Exactly.

    There is no decision tree. They want what can’t be. They don’t want reality. They don’t want an experiment where they find out the real answer. They want a specific predetermined answer nothing less.

  101. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Herp McDerp

    Agreed, Mr. McDerp. "Issue" has been used for "problem" for 30 years. In the corporate world, the word is "challenge". "No, see, we don't use negative words like that. So, you have a challenge then?" "No, I quit - you all have a big fucking problem!"

    Replies: @Seneca44, @Herp McDerp

    I usually find that “challenge” in CorpSpeak means fuck up.

  102. @Corvinus
    @Jim Don Bob

    "Conversation is one of those words and phrases that set off my BS detector"

    How about "Let's have a talk" or "We need to talk" or simply "The Talk"? Does not set off an alarm for you?

    Replies: @John Johnson

    For my BS detector to go off all I need is a representative of clown world to start a sentence with an emphatic and authoritative The

    honk honk

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @John Johnson

    "For my BS detector to go off all I need is a representative of clown world to start a sentence with an emphatic and authoritative The"

    So, for example, this...

    https://www.takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/#axzz1rlBGYzGK

    Honk, honk.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  103. Good work noticing Mr. Sailer.

    My take on the notice is that it coincides with the rise of “framing” and deliberately omitting the other side’s “talking points” – often out loud and up front, i.e.: “why are you raising Republican talking points?”

    Shortly following the replacement of two-sided debate with framing and avoiding the other sides’s talking points – or at least the routine expectation of performative debate, we shifted to a battle over the narrative.

    So –
    Not: who has the better of the debate?

    Instead –
    Who has control of the narrative? – or who has the dominant narrative?

    “The conversation” dovetails nicely into a narrative. What does debate have to do with a narrative?

  104. @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.
     
    The most cartoonishly anti-male comment I've seen in over a decade here didn't come from Rosie, nor from Alden on one of her off days. (Alden and Jack D make many good comments, but are way too sensitive about their own demographics. Lighten up!)

    No, it came from Mr/Ms/Mx Camara, who reduced our entire sex to muh dick.

    The male sex can be sorted into two camps, those who think Loni Anderson was sexier, and those who know Jan Smithers was. Even Wikipedia agrees:

    Two generations of American males were judged by their answers to the question "Ginger or Mary Ann?" and "Jennifer or Bailey?", and both sets of women became cultural icons of their generations.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_Quarters#WKRP_roles
     

    Replies: @theMann, @Achmed E. Newman, @Sick of Orcs

    Well that is just ridiculous.

    Everybody knows the proper question is:
    Zoe, Inara, Kaylee, or River Tam?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @theMann


    Everybody knows the proper question is:
    Zoe, Inara, Kaylee, or River Tam?
     
    Who? Sorry, I'm not a brony.

    Replies: @theMann, @res

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @theMann

    No contest.

    https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F17800000%2FInara-Serra-tv-female-characters-17862533-1920-1200.jpg

    Replies: @theMann

  105. @Corvinus
    @Stephen Paul Foster

    "However, more insidious is pronoun manipulation — first person plural — used mainly by social justice types to fake “togetherness” and consensus on controversial issues and marginalize critics. As in: “our democracy”, “our” values, “not who we are”, “we need sensible gun control laws” etc."

    Using your own logic, it also employed by the Alt Right in a sinister fashion. As in "our white nation", "our way of life is under attack", "pro-white" beliefs, "we must defeat the globalist Jew", etc.

    "Clearly, the latter are much more feminine and manipulative."

    More like someone's personal opinion, rather than absolute truth, about how to frame a discussion.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    You are wrong, but that is fine.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  106. @anonymous
    Whatever happened to "problematic" ?

    Replies: @Clyde, @Mr. Anon, @Change that Matters

    “Problematize” had a good run for a while.

    As in, “Problematization is a critical thinking and pedagogical dialogue or process and may be considered demythicisation.”

  107. On the other, the shift from “the debate” to the “the conversation” seems related to the on-going feminization of discourse (with “the discussion” in the middle in terms of masculinity vs. feminine).

    What did Sgt. Joe Friday often say? “Just the facts, ma’am.”

    Amen.

  108. @Mr. Anon

    My guess is that the change in prepositions is merely a fad. After all, prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.
     
    I don't remember them being arbitrary in the past. There seemed to be agreed upon conventions which are now routinely ignored. However, just in the last few years, I've heard any number of (mostly younger) journalists seemingly use whatever proposition popped into their mind - saying things like "a robbery to a gas station", which I would have described as a "a robbery of a gas station" or a "a robbery at a gas station" (depending on the context).

    It seems like most public language today is some form of bulls**t. It has been - as you observed - feminized, with terms like "conversation around", cloaked in terms of bureaucratic obfuscation, like "issue" instead of problem (as other commenters have noted), and imbued with the threatening language of technocratic jargon: "the science is settled", "follow the science", "the wrong side of history", etc.

    Orwell himself couldn't have imagined a corruption of language so complete as what we see today.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Cortes

    ““a robbery to a gas station”, which I would have described as a “a robbery of a gas station” or a “a robbery at a gas station””

    I’d use “robbery of a gas station” when the robber robbed the gas station’s money and “robbery at a gas station” when the robber robbed a customer’s money.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Steve Sailer


    I’d use “robbery of a gas station” when the robber robbed the gas station’s money and “robbery at a gas station” when the robber robbed a customer’s money.
     
    Exactly. And I'd use "robbery to a gas station" exactly never. But I've heard it on the local news. Many times.
    , @Pericles
    @Steve Sailer

    Though when one visits to fill up, it's a "robbery with a gas station".

  109. @John Johnson
    @Corvinus

    For my BS detector to go off all I need is a representative of clown world to start a sentence with an emphatic and authoritative The

    honk honk

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “For my BS detector to go off all I need is a representative of clown world to start a sentence with an emphatic and authoritative The”

    So, for example, this…

    https://www.takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/#axzz1rlBGYzGK

    Honk, honk.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Corvinus

    That's not a representative from clown world.

    Taki is a bloggish magazine with alternative views that would never be mentioned in proper clown company.

    What I meant was when someone like Kalama is speaking on anything related to race.

    Usually a condescending tone is all that is needed and my BS detector goes off.

    Unlike Kalama and clown town I am fine with politely discussing everything including egalitarian views that conflict with my own. Pushing your beliefs by controlling dissent through social pressure and calling it a conversation is Orwellian.

    I'd prefer a more honest version where a clown appears on television and says "race doesn't exist so fuck you Whitey" and throws a pie at the camera. That's about the level of intellectual rigor that is beneath their one-way conversations.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  110. @Clyde
    @anonymous


    Whatever happened to “problematic” ?
     
    "Problematical" trumped it, ran it out of town. Those are two words deplorables never use. Lawyers and wokistas like them. A twitter search show the types who use them >>> https://twitter.com/search?q=Problematical&src=typed_query&f=top

    The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions — they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    So, so true. Our mass entertainment, TV, movies, have gone Fem in language and plots. Ye old action and spy movies were good, now are unwatchable. The male actors are soft and non-convincing

    Replies: @Clyde, @Jack Armstrong

    Problematicalistic?

  111. @Alice in Wonderland
    @John Johnson

    Nah, women are cowards. I say this as a woman.

    Consider the feminization of public transportation, where a woman is raped and no one helps her.

    Toxic feminity.

    Replies: @Jack Armstrong

    Consider the feminization of public transportation, where a woman is raped and no one helps her.

    White Knighting is not based. Women are strong and fierce, they don’t need our paternalism.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Jack Armstrong

    They may be fierce but they aren’t strong. And yes, they need our help. They were designed to need it.

  112. @John Johnson
    @Muggles

    Whenever I hear or read the term “conversation” used as this essay suggests, “I want to reach for my revolver” as the old Stalinist meme says.

    Yes, it is a female thing mostly. Or males who adopt that.

    In college I observed that there were three types of men that submitted to liberalism/feminism:

    1. Suckers. All freshmen can be naive to liberal bias but by the 3rd year you should have figured out that liberals are not seeking "the science" as they claim. Some guys never got it and truly believed that their liberal prof was trying to study race and gender as one might study chemistry.
    2. Guys that thought being submissive to women and around feminists would get them a girlfriend. It never worked. Even far-left feminists are still attracted to men that don't give an f about feminism. They don't want to be but their hormones don't care. They will date some prick jock and not even think about it. In their mind it is just all by chance.
    3. Gays/effeminate guys that identify with women. Self-explanatory.

    I would say #2 was the biggest group once you factored out apathetic freshmen that just had to pick up their required electives.

    What you end up with is an alliance against critical thinking. They all rally around what is really critical theory (blaming straight men, Whites, Christians, etc) and as a group affirm their ideas to be correct.

    I have been in these classrooms and it turns into creepy groupthink. I have wanted to raise my hand and point out that no one in the room is actually thinking. The professor presented some liberal ideas and everyone is repeating them. That is not critical thinking.

    But these women/gays/effeminate men/suckers really did believe they were thinking about reality. In their minds there is really nothing to debate because social scientists have already studied these problems and the books provide the results. Questioning what you are told means you are some weirdo that is either racist or doesn't get it.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Indeed, the end result is a decided lack of critical thinking. People here typically rally around platitudes like “anti-white”, “Jewish conspiracy”, and “race realism” and as a group affirm their ideas to be unilaterally correct.

    I have borne witness to the phenomenon on this fine opinion webzine known as confirmation bias. I point out and NOTICE that a number of posters are not really engaging in critical thinking, especially when they regurgitate “Fake News” to any and all counter assertions to their prescribed tin cup narratives.

    And some people here truly believe they were thinking about reality. In their minds, there is really nothing to debate (or is it converse) because iSteve has already recognized patterns for them through his authoritative lecture lens. Questioning what is being said through reasoning and evidence will inevitable lead unz.com minions to unilaterally label the offender as “anti-white” or “a Jew” or a “hasbara troll”.

    See how that works, JJ?

  113. @Stan Adams
    @Buffalo Joe

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

    Replies: @Jack Armstrong

    According at the interwebs Ameena Ruffin (the fat one) is a debate teacher on the Success Academy into New York City! Go girl!

    https://www.arounddeal.com/profile/ameena-ruffin/p2hqmdsepi/

    Current Workplace
    Success Academy Charter Schools
    Location
    United States

    Industry
    Education Management

    Description
    Located in New York City, We are reversing the opportunity gap for thousands of New York City children. We currently have openings in our schools and network office. We encourage you to have a look at our current job openings and consider applying! #HiringNow Success Academy is a fast-paced, leading-edge organization working boldly and urgently to overturn the vast educational inequities that block opportunity for too many children. A network of 47 public charter schools serving 18,000 K-12 students in some of New York City’s most underserved neighborhoods, we are nationally recognized for our groundbreaking, whole-child school model and outstanding academic results. As innovators and thought leaders, we share our curriculum and model with educators across the country and advocate to change public policies that prevent children and families from having access to great public schools.

    I’d like for think that she’s hanging out on April Hathcock (https://twitter.com/AprilHathcock) America’s Wokest Librarian. 🙂

  114. @Mr. Anon

    My guess is that the change in prepositions is merely a fad. After all, prepositions in English are somewhat arbitrary, which is why it’s hard for people learning English to remember which preposition to use.
     
    I don't remember them being arbitrary in the past. There seemed to be agreed upon conventions which are now routinely ignored. However, just in the last few years, I've heard any number of (mostly younger) journalists seemingly use whatever proposition popped into their mind - saying things like "a robbery to a gas station", which I would have described as a "a robbery of a gas station" or a "a robbery at a gas station" (depending on the context).

    It seems like most public language today is some form of bulls**t. It has been - as you observed - feminized, with terms like "conversation around", cloaked in terms of bureaucratic obfuscation, like "issue" instead of problem (as other commenters have noted), and imbued with the threatening language of technocratic jargon: "the science is settled", "follow the science", "the wrong side of history", etc.

    Orwell himself couldn't have imagined a corruption of language so complete as what we see today.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Cortes

    “ robbery to a gas station” sounds like the mother tongue is Spanish: “robbery at a gas station” would be okay in British English.

    (I used to make some money doing technical translation: prepositions are the stuff of nightmares.)

  115. @BenjaminL
    The feminization of discourse is a huge deal. I think it is a big part of why so many men are so turned off of so many institutions -- they can sense the feminization and say: no thanks.

    Even without a byline, you can tell within a few sentences whether an author is masculine or feminine.

    It's a big part of why so much official discourse feels so fake: all about feelings and niceties and euphemisms. Men say: no thanks, we need the blunt truth. Hence the appeal of truth tellers. I wonder what the M/F breakdown of readers here is? 95/5?

    Replies: @guest007, @Achmed E. Newman, @ginger bread man, @Coemgen

    Ah, we’re mostly graying slashdotters.

    The ancient by www standards slashdot poll for “my gender is” produced these results:

    My Gender Is

    Male ……………………………..48543 votes / 82%
    Female ……………………………3307 votes / 5%
    Somewhere in the Middle….7181 votes / 12%
    ……………………………………. 59031 total votes.

    https://slashdot.org/poll/406/my-gender-is

    plus ca change …

  116. @Herp McDerp
    Another: some people use the word "issue" when they mean "problem" ...
    A problem is something to be tackled, solved, or fixed.
    An issue is something to be talked about (sometimes endlessly), and decided.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Art Deco, @Dube

    … some people use the word “issue” when they mean “problem” …
    A problem is something to be tackled, solved, or fixed.
    An issue is something to be talked about (sometimes endlessly), and decided.

    Yes, allow me to wonk it. “Issue” is short for the point at issue in a disagreement. E.g., A says, “Too long,” B says, “Too short.” The point at issue is the acceptability of the length. That is to define the issue, a service in clarification.

    To raise an issue – a point of disagreement – might be a problem, but to define an issue is a service to all sides.

  117. @Buffalo Joe
    I haven't read the comments yet but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Muggles, @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

  118. @Anon
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I’m a woman. I didn’t agree with many things Rosie said, or her harping tone.

    That said, she was attacked and ridiculed — even in absentia—, in ways it’s pretty rare to see a regular male commenter attacked (That Would be Trolling? Utu?) She did not seem to have Alden’s strength of mind either, so it’s no wonder she left. I wonder if she was here more to change the male commentariat’s collective mind than for the information. Good luck with that! But still, the treatment she received hardly does you guys credit.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Pericles

    # 175, Rosie’s problem was that she could not see that she is a feminist at heart and wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism. At some point I simply asked her not to start “conversations” with me (possibly on the Audacious Epignone blog). She did pretty well in complying with my request.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism."

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland

    , @Twinkie
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Rosie’s problem was that she could not see that she is a feminist at heart and wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism.
     
    I think Rosie was rather clear that she was not a conservative, but a national socialist. She also had a strong streak of approving “white shariah.”
  119. @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.
     
    The most cartoonishly anti-male comment I've seen in over a decade here didn't come from Rosie, nor from Alden on one of her off days. (Alden and Jack D make many good comments, but are way too sensitive about their own demographics. Lighten up!)

    No, it came from Mr/Ms/Mx Camara, who reduced our entire sex to muh dick.

    The male sex can be sorted into two camps, those who think Loni Anderson was sexier, and those who know Jan Smithers was. Even Wikipedia agrees:

    Two generations of American males were judged by their answers to the question "Ginger or Mary Ann?" and "Jennifer or Bailey?", and both sets of women became cultural icons of their generations.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_Quarters#WKRP_roles
     

    Replies: @theMann, @Achmed E. Newman, @Sick of Orcs

    Bailey.

    • Agree: Herp McDerp
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Bailey.

     

    That's what I told my Depression-reared, WWII-vet, Loni-lusting uncle forty years ago when we watched the show together. He couldn't even process that.

    https://i.pinimg.com/474x/72/b2/d7/72b2d71f969345decb661ad3cb407175--jan-smithers-march-.jpg


    Sad news for aging music lovers today-- Leslie Bricusse and Jay Black are gone. Someone here recently posted the video of "Cara Mia". Is Steve a jinx?

    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/leslie-bricusse-dead-obit-1244742/

    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/jay-black-jay-and-the-americans-singer-dead-obit-1247111/

  120. @Anon
    OT:

    Congrats guys. You did it. You got the mean man out of office. Country is so much better off now.

    "Border Patrol agents apprehended a total of 1,666,167 illegal immigrants along the southwest border in fiscal 2021 - breaking all records since 1925 after the agency was formed (when 22,199 illegal aliens were arrested)."

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/all-records-shattered-after-17-million-illegal-immigrants-arrested-southern-border

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Are you nuts? There is not a commenter on here besides Jonathan Mason, OK maybe Paleo Liberal too, who voted for Joe Biden.

    Truth did not show up to the polls, as they didn’t offer him free fried chicken this time.

  121. @Corvinus
    @John Johnson

    "For my BS detector to go off all I need is a representative of clown world to start a sentence with an emphatic and authoritative The"

    So, for example, this...

    https://www.takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/#axzz1rlBGYzGK

    Honk, honk.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    That’s not a representative from clown world.

    Taki is a bloggish magazine with alternative views that would never be mentioned in proper clown company.

    What I meant was when someone like Kalama is speaking on anything related to race.

    Usually a condescending tone is all that is needed and my BS detector goes off.

    Unlike Kalama and clown town I am fine with politely discussing everything including egalitarian views that conflict with my own. Pushing your beliefs by controlling dissent through social pressure and calling it a conversation is Orwellian.

    I’d prefer a more honest version where a clown appears on television and says “race doesn’t exist so fuck you Whitey” and throws a pie at the camera. That’s about the level of intellectual rigor that is beneath their one-way conversations.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @John Johnson

    “That’s not a representative from clown world… What I meant was when someone like Kalama is speaking on anything related to race.”

    More than likely, he is. But let us for fun say he is not. He did use the phrase that you said sets off your BS detector. So apparently it is only operational for people whom you personally designate as clown worthy. Well, you will need to recalibrate.

    “Usually a condescending tone is all that is needed and my BS detector goes off.”

    Right, that was Derbyshire’s tone. It’s patently obvious.

    “Pushing your beliefs by controlling dissent through social pressure and calling it a conversation is Orwellian.”

    You do realize the irony and hypocrisy, right? Then again, you don’t.

    “I’d prefer a more honest version where a clown appears on television and says “race doesn’t exist”…

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004
    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavery.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm

    Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”

    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

  122. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    # 175, Rosie's problem was that she could not see that she is a feminist at heart and wouldn't admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism. At some point I simply asked her not to start "conversations" with me (possibly on the Audacious Epignone blog). She did pretty well in complying with my request.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Twinkie

    “wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism.”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    • Replies: @Alice in Wonderland
    @Corvinus


    “wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism.”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

     

    No.

    observed reality

    Conservatism seeks to keep what works and dump what doesn't. Feminism doesn't work. It exacerbates inequality and harms children. It is a losing strategy. It is maladaptive and societies that embrace it go into decline. See countries with sub replacement fertility.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @John Johnson

  123. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    # 175, Rosie's problem was that she could not see that she is a feminist at heart and wouldn't admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism. At some point I simply asked her not to start "conversations" with me (possibly on the Audacious Epignone blog). She did pretty well in complying with my request.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Twinkie

    Rosie’s problem was that she could not see that she is a feminist at heart and wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism.

    I think Rosie was rather clear that she was not a conservative, but a national socialist. She also had a strong streak of approving “white shariah.”

  124. @theMann
    @Reg Cæsar

    Well that is just ridiculous.

    Everybody knows the proper question is:
    Zoe, Inara, Kaylee, or River Tam?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob

    Everybody knows the proper question is:
    Zoe, Inara, Kaylee, or River Tam?

    Who? Sorry, I’m not a brony.

    • Replies: @theMann
    @Reg Cæsar

    Firefly, doofus

    , @res
    @Reg Cæsar

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV_series)

  125. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Reg Cæsar

    Bailey.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Bailey.

    That’s what I told my Depression-reared, WWII-vet, Loni-lusting uncle forty years ago when we watched the show together. He couldn’t even process that.

    Sad news for aging music lovers today– Leslie Bricusse and Jay Black are gone. Someone here recently posted the video of “Cara Mia”. Is Steve a jinx?

    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/leslie-bricusse-dead-obit-1244742/

    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/jay-black-jay-and-the-americans-singer-dead-obit-1247111/

  126. @Muggles
    @Buffalo Joe


    but someone please post a video of what passes for debate in the woke world.
     
    "No debate, comrade, just mandate..."

    Replies: @Travis

    no more debates, no need for congress to pass legislation, everything is now mandated by the Executive branches of our Governments. No more need for state legislatures or congress. Just executive orders mandating compliance or lose your job.

    Steve stopped promoting the vaccines when he realized they are not 90% effective. Efficacy collapses after 6 months…yet he has failed to discuss the boosters ? Why has he failed to discuss the boosters ? Is Steve waiting for the Booster efficacy studies before he starts telling us to get a third dose ? Hard to have the data when we have no control group in the study and nobody over the age of 55 in the studies. He must realize the studies were bogus by now. He was hoodwinked because he trusted the “science”. The same scientists who promote equity and deny that race exists he trusted with our lives.

    Steve no longer talks about excess deaths, yet excess deaths in 2021 are higher than 2020 even after 75% of adults have been vaccinated. I wonder if he realizes we have been scammed yet but is too embarrassed to discuss the harm caused to our nation from the lockdowns and mandates.

    I know it is difficult to admit when you are wrong.The vaccines failed to stop the spread. They failed to reduce hospitalizations. They failed to get America back to normal. Children are still forced to wear masks (even if they are vaccinated). And soon the boosters will be mandated here, like they are in Israel for a disease that has a fatality rate of 0.2% for Americans under the age of 70. Yet young cops, nurses and soldiers are now being fired for not getting vaccinated with a vaccine which does not prevent illness nor reduce the spread of the virus.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Where have the excess deaths over the last 6 months been more taking place? In more vaccinate or unvaccinated states?

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @Travis, @J.Ross

    , @Muggles
    @Travis

    Travis, your response to my brief post is full of what psychologists call "transference." That is, loading onto others issues that you yourself have failed to grasp/deal with/understand/solve.

    Your frustration is understandable but iSteve doesn't claim to be a doctor nor does he give medical advice. Nor is he a disease researcher. He has no crystal ball nor any secret means to discover truths which evade everyone else. Why blame him here?

    The entire COVID-19 saga has been one of confusion, false claims, hope and despair and larded with bullying government "leaders" who want to glorify themselves by forcing others to do things. iSteve just posts info he obtains and sometimes analyzes. His own stated views are carefully hedged and have changed over time as more info is obtained.

    So your ire in your post is misplaced. This saga is not over. There is scientific evidence that prior infection does convey some valuable immunity. Also same for the vaxxes, but not like the early hype was claiming. Of course Our Leaders want to take credit for successes that have yet to happen. No surprise there.

    You are free here to post actual science facts which you think have been ignored. But you prefer to complain about our host. Pointless carping about what others "fail to do" solves nothing.

  127. @Travis
    @Muggles

    no more debates, no need for congress to pass legislation, everything is now mandated by the Executive branches of our Governments. No more need for state legislatures or congress. Just executive orders mandating compliance or lose your job.

    Steve stopped promoting the vaccines when he realized they are not 90% effective. Efficacy collapses after 6 months...yet he has failed to discuss the boosters ? Why has he failed to discuss the boosters ? Is Steve waiting for the Booster efficacy studies before he starts telling us to get a third dose ? Hard to have the data when we have no control group in the study and nobody over the age of 55 in the studies. He must realize the studies were bogus by now. He was hoodwinked because he trusted the "science". The same scientists who promote equity and deny that race exists he trusted with our lives.

    Steve no longer talks about excess deaths, yet excess deaths in 2021 are higher than 2020 even after 75% of adults have been vaccinated. I wonder if he realizes we have been scammed yet but is too embarrassed to discuss the harm caused to our nation from the lockdowns and mandates.

    I know it is difficult to admit when you are wrong.The vaccines failed to stop the spread. They failed to reduce hospitalizations. They failed to get America back to normal. Children are still forced to wear masks (even if they are vaccinated). And soon the boosters will be mandated here, like they are in Israel for a disease that has a fatality rate of 0.2% for Americans under the age of 70. Yet young cops, nurses and soldiers are now being fired for not getting vaccinated with a vaccine which does not prevent illness nor reduce the spread of the virus.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Muggles

    Where have the excess deaths over the last 6 months been more taking place? In more vaccinate or unvaccinated states?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Steve Sailer

    Where have the excess deaths over the last 6 months been more taking place? In more vaccinate or unvaccinated states?

    Excess deaths have increased in unvaccinated states because teams of Israeli special ops are going to hospitals and executing people with COVID before they can be saved by Ivermectin which would then eliminate drug company profits.

    It's all so obvious and simple. I can't believe we have to explain it to you.

    A doctor on facebook already explained it. I believe he is the top etymologist in southwest Denver.

    , @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Steve Sailer

    Which states have the lowest vaccination rates ? I suppose The Blackest states have the lowest rates, but in every state over 70% of adults are vaccinated. The demographics and climate of the State matters more than vaccination rate when looking at coronavirus deaths. Currently Maine and Vermont (90% vaxxed) have higher rates of CV hospitalizations than Florida (75% vaxxed)

    But excess deaths and COVID deaths have been higher in 2021 than 2020 when the vaccination rate was basically zero. CV Deaths in August and September were up 112% from 2020, but excess deaths were up even more, especially among Americans under the age of 45. Same pattern in The UK , excess deaths up significantly , mostly due to increased heart issues and blood clots among men under 45.

    The only age demographic not seeing excess deaths in the UK and America are children under 17. Strange, since they are the only group not eligible for vaccinations from the deadly coronavirus.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Travis
    @Steve Sailer

    https://twitter.com/JDKnox4/status/1452293817047175170?s=20

    https://www.usmortality.com/ Excess deaths are up in 2021 verse 2020 despite the fact that 70% of Adults were vaccinated by August and 78% of adults are currently vaccinated.

    Same situation in Europe. Excess deaths much higher for those aged 18-45. Excess deaths have increased as the vaccination rates have increased across Europe for young adults.

    , @J.Ross
    @Steve Sailer

    what if there was data from other countries plus the past record of official mistakes and lies plus 100% mainstream doctors who disagree
    nawwwww never mind that would be crazy let's just fire nurses, cops, and emergency workers plus vacation in mexico and mob up maskless at the wnba and the street and various restaurants plus have open borders and visit the elderly without a mask.
    cause that's what you do in a pandemic. you really mainly want to get rid of nurses and hang out maskless in tropical countries with inferior medical care during a pandemic.

  128. @Steve Sailer
    @Mr. Anon

    "“a robbery to a gas station”, which I would have described as a “a robbery of a gas station” or a “a robbery at a gas station”"

    I'd use "robbery of a gas station" when the robber robbed the gas station's money and "robbery at a gas station" when the robber robbed a customer's money.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Pericles

    I’d use “robbery of a gas station” when the robber robbed the gas station’s money and “robbery at a gas station” when the robber robbed a customer’s money.

    Exactly. And I’d use “robbery to a gas station” exactly never. But I’ve heard it on the local news. Many times.

  129. @Arclight
    Having endless conversations ensures the legions of consultants and trainers around these issues will have perpetual opportunities for work.

    Replies: @Curle

    But at least they’ll be creating synergies.

  130. @Jack Armstrong
    @Alice in Wonderland


    Consider the feminization of public transportation, where a woman is raped and no one helps her.
     
    White Knighting is not based. Women are strong and fierce, they don’t need our paternalism.

    Replies: @Curle

    They may be fierce but they aren’t strong. And yes, they need our help. They were designed to need it.

  131. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Where have the excess deaths over the last 6 months been more taking place? In more vaccinate or unvaccinated states?

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @Travis, @J.Ross

    Where have the excess deaths over the last 6 months been more taking place? In more vaccinate or unvaccinated states?

    Excess deaths have increased in unvaccinated states because teams of Israeli special ops are going to hospitals and executing people with COVID before they can be saved by Ivermectin which would then eliminate drug company profits.

    It’s all so obvious and simple. I can’t believe we have to explain it to you.

    A doctor on facebook already explained it. I believe he is the top etymologist in southwest Denver.

  132. anonymous[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Old and Grumpy
    In a rarity I will defend all conversating women. You men have let women get the easy non debate victory for decades. What good many men do when the words get tough (or annoying) is scurry away. I get it is about keeping the peace on a personal level. Still it is a surefire means of victory for us. Now it is done on national level with "conversations." If I were a gambling woman, I bet on men rolling away here as well. You and your male ancestors dug this hole.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Mr Mox

    Right, deference is a part of being a man with a family, and usually extends to men as a group deferring to women as a group.

    Women in a family want things, quite often without knowing why. If they don’t get them, the kids tend to die or be crippled. Sometimes this is because the things are absolutely necessary, sometimes its because the woman kills the kids, usually indirectly. Women usually test for this “demand dominance” pre-marriage, one way or another, because they will need it to keep the kids alive during the marriage.

    Such tests are commonly mentioned in folksongs — Betty and Dupree, Lady of Carlisle

    This sort of female sensitivity to conditions is common in mammalian species, and is one reason why getting wild animals in captivity to reproduce is difficult. https://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html

    The early anti-feminists, 1800s, were aware of this sort of capriciousness, and of the effect it would have on politics. The bulk of women around 1900 are said to have opposed votes for women.

    This deference to aggregate women’s sensitivity and demands is not unusual in human societies, and can promote group survival when associated with resource depletion severe enough to hinder group reproduction. However, it has not produced results that favor group survival since the advent of large scale mechanized warfare in 1914. Further, large scale participation of women in politics has been associated in several cases with social senility (followed by radical transformation, such as conquest or stasis, of the societies). The large scale participation may well be an attempt to compensate for the failures of existing men’s social structures, or may simply be from overconfidence due to a society’s apparent wealth and longevity, but these are just guesses. See Duton’s book on feminism.

    Men’s deference to women may very well be an inherent characteristic of human society. Women do what women want to do or the kids die, and sometimes its “and the kids die”. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

    You may say that this is “blaming women”. Not so, it’s just another reward matrix in another evolutionary game. However, if you insist, I’ll employ a feminine argument and point out that your message strongly condemns men.

  133. @JohnnyWalker123
    The new phrase/term that I find most interesting is "space."

    I'm seeing that everywhere these days.

    "Deal space."
    "Twitter spaces."
    "Safe space."

    What's the deal with that?

    It's a cool word that's sort of useful, but also sort of BS. Hip young journalist/social influencer/intelligentsia types say it a lot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHB5S9JsfGc

    "Cannabis space."

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Buzz Mohawk, @Lockean Proviso, @Herp McDerp

    People who use cannabis tend to stare into space. They’re spaced out, man.

  134. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Where have the excess deaths over the last 6 months been more taking place? In more vaccinate or unvaccinated states?

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @Travis, @J.Ross

    Which states have the lowest vaccination rates ? I suppose The Blackest states have the lowest rates, but in every state over 70% of adults are vaccinated. The demographics and climate of the State matters more than vaccination rate when looking at coronavirus deaths. Currently Maine and Vermont (90% vaxxed) have higher rates of CV hospitalizations than Florida (75% vaxxed)

    But excess deaths and COVID deaths have been higher in 2021 than 2020 when the vaccination rate was basically zero. CV Deaths in August and September were up 112% from 2020, but excess deaths were up even more, especially among Americans under the age of 45. Same pattern in The UK , excess deaths up significantly , mostly due to increased heart issues and blood clots among men under 45.

    The only age demographic not seeing excess deaths in the UK and America are children under 17. Strange, since they are the only group not eligible for vaccinations from the deadly coronavirus.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco


    The only age demographic not seeing excess deaths in the UK and America are children under 17. Strange, since they are the only group not eligible for vaccinations from the deadly coronavirus.
     
    American youths age 13 and up are eligible for vaccination. All my kids 13 and up have been. We will likely see the approval for kids 5-12 (in reduced doses) in the next several weeks, at which point the rest of my kids will be.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  135. @Anon
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I’m a woman. I didn’t agree with many things Rosie said, or her harping tone.

    That said, she was attacked and ridiculed — even in absentia—, in ways it’s pretty rare to see a regular male commenter attacked (That Would be Trolling? Utu?) She did not seem to have Alden’s strength of mind either, so it’s no wonder she left. I wonder if she was here more to change the male commentariat’s collective mind than for the information. Good luck with that! But still, the treatment she received hardly does you guys credit.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Pericles

    Perhaps her grant for fighting hatred online ran out.

  136. @Steve Sailer
    @Mr. Anon

    "“a robbery to a gas station”, which I would have described as a “a robbery of a gas station” or a “a robbery at a gas station”"

    I'd use "robbery of a gas station" when the robber robbed the gas station's money and "robbery at a gas station" when the robber robbed a customer's money.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Pericles

    Though when one visits to fill up, it’s a “robbery with a gas station”.

  137. @Clyde
    My favorite junk word is "passionate". Female popularized. "Conversation" means some dopey lefty wants to shove some nonsense down your throat. "Debate" means the same.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Gamecock, @Mr. Anon, @Lockean Proviso

    “Raising awareness” used to be the term favored by dopey lefties shoving nonsense, now it is indeed the one-sided ‘conversation.’

  138. @Alice in Wonderland
    @Ray P




    There have also been quite a few man-o-sphere types who have defended behavour described as ‘sexual harassment’ on the ground that it is a natural expression of the sex instinct especially by males.
     
    Simply calling something 'sexual harassment' doesn't make it sexual harassment.

    Is smiling sexual harassment?

    Is talking sexual harassment?

    Is joking sexual harassment?

    Is offering to buy someone a drink sexual harassment?

    Replies: @Ray P, @Dmon, @Hypnotoad666

    All of these have been construed as ‘sexual harassment’ in various situations by some. Generally, for feminists, if a male’s behaviour toward a woman is specific to her being female it is sexist (he wouldn’t behave like this to a man) and possibly sexual harassment if done with the intent of procuring sexual favours.

    • Replies: @Alice in Wonderland
    @Ray P

    Yeah, and here's the problem, the reverse is also considered harassment or discrimination, misogyny, or whatever.



    Not smiling is misogyny.

    Not talking is misogyny.

    Not joking is misogyny.

    Not offering to buy someone a drink is misogyny.

    Replies: @Ray P

  139. Society is set up to favor women in every way

    Once you understand this, then you will understand what drives the Left

    And the Right because Tradcons believe in the Gynocentric Social Order as much as Leftists do

    They aren’t conscious of it though

    Men are both sides are blithely unaware of the real dynamic at work and if they start to get wise they will be told they must hate women

    They will obey like good little boys and go back to their second class status as plow horses, cannon fodder and sperm donaters

    And they like it that way!

    99% of men don’t want to be free, they want a woman to control them like Mom used to

    It’s beyond pathetic and it is ubiquitous

  140. The prepositions do matter; The debate is always “over” something. “Over” denotes dominance, hence masculinity. The conversation is always “around” something. What is more feminine than “around”? When we say “talking around” we mean avoiding the problem at hand.

    What about “talking about” something? We could have a conversation “about” something, but “about” has a hard sound to it, like “debate”. It even contains the word “bout”, bringing to mind a fight, which is the essence of masculinity. The prepositions are chosen as carefully as the verbs.

    • Replies: @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    @Thirdtwin

    I think at core and essence is that a debate is something about which a civic disagreement exists, and civil people are expected to subordinate themselves to the better of the two arguments - if civics (and not its opposite: authority and/or war) is what they profess to be practicing.

    Whereas - a conversation is about something that we agree about. And - should we not agree, then it's like when a parent stops the teenager mid-sentence and explains, "[you] listen to me, this is not a debate, do you understand?"

    , @Corvinus
    @Thirdtwin

    Basically, you are using subjective language to justify a personal preference.

    Replies: @Thirdtwin

  141. This word choice surfaced in a Glenn context recently; granted, he’s way out on the pugnacious/aggro spectrum from the median cis-gay-man in the media arena:

  142. @Thirdtwin
    The prepositions do matter; The debate is always “over” something. “Over” denotes dominance, hence masculinity. The conversation is always “around” something. What is more feminine than “around”? When we say “talking around” we mean avoiding the problem at hand.

    What about “talking about” something? We could have a conversation “about” something, but “about” has a hard sound to it, like “debate”. It even contains the word “bout”, bringing to mind a fight, which is the essence of masculinity. The prepositions are chosen as carefully as the verbs.

    Replies: @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @Corvinus

    I think at core and essence is that a debate is something about which a civic disagreement exists, and civil people are expected to subordinate themselves to the better of the two arguments – if civics (and not its opposite: authority and/or war) is what they profess to be practicing.

    Whereas – a conversation is about something that we agree about. And – should we not agree, then it’s like when a parent stops the teenager mid-sentence and explains, “[you] listen to me, this is not a debate, do you understand?”

    • Agree: Boomthorkell
  143. @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Steve Sailer

    Which states have the lowest vaccination rates ? I suppose The Blackest states have the lowest rates, but in every state over 70% of adults are vaccinated. The demographics and climate of the State matters more than vaccination rate when looking at coronavirus deaths. Currently Maine and Vermont (90% vaxxed) have higher rates of CV hospitalizations than Florida (75% vaxxed)

    But excess deaths and COVID deaths have been higher in 2021 than 2020 when the vaccination rate was basically zero. CV Deaths in August and September were up 112% from 2020, but excess deaths were up even more, especially among Americans under the age of 45. Same pattern in The UK , excess deaths up significantly , mostly due to increased heart issues and blood clots among men under 45.

    The only age demographic not seeing excess deaths in the UK and America are children under 17. Strange, since they are the only group not eligible for vaccinations from the deadly coronavirus.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    The only age demographic not seeing excess deaths in the UK and America are children under 17. Strange, since they are the only group not eligible for vaccinations from the deadly coronavirus.

    American youths age 13 and up are eligible for vaccination. All my kids 13 and up have been. We will likely see the approval for kids 5-12 (in reduced doses) in the next several weeks, at which point the rest of my kids will be.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Twinkie


    American youths age 13 and up are eligible for vaccination. All my kids 13 and up have been. We will likely see the approval for kids 5-12 (in reduced doses) in the next several weeks, at which point the rest of my kids will be.
     
    Sorry, that should have been 12 and 5-11 respectively.
  144. @Ray P
    @Alice in Wonderland

    All of these have been construed as 'sexual harassment' in various situations by some. Generally, for feminists, if a male's behaviour toward a woman is specific to her being female it is sexist (he wouldn't behave like this to a man) and possibly sexual harassment if done with the intent of procuring sexual favours.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland

    Yeah, and here’s the problem, the reverse is also considered harassment or discrimination, misogyny, or whatever.

    Not smiling is misogyny.

    Not talking is misogyny.

    Not joking is misogyny.

    Not offering to buy someone a drink is misogyny.

    • Replies: @Ray P
    @Alice in Wonderland

    I guess I've been magnificently misogynistic to a lot of women.


    Better stop dreaming of the quiet life
    'cause it's the one we'll never know
    And quit running for that runaway bus
    'cause those rosy days are few, and
    Stop apologizing, for the things you've never done,
    'cause time is short and life is cruel
    But it's up to us to change
    This town called malice

    Rows and rows of disused milk floats
    Stand dying in the dairy yard
    And a hundred lonely housewives
    Clutch empty milk bottles to their hearts
    Hanging out their old love letters on the line to dry
    It's enough to make you stop believing
    When tears come fast and furious
    In a town called Malice

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfpRm-p7qlY
  145. The last thing the Woke desire is “conversation” or open debate. They merely wish to engage in diatribe and instantly attempt to silence any opposing views.

  146. @Corvinus
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism."

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland

    “wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism.”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    No.

    observed reality

    Conservatism seeks to keep what works and dump what doesn’t. Feminism doesn’t work. It exacerbates inequality and harms children. It is a losing strategy. It is maladaptive and societies that embrace it go into decline. See countries with sub replacement fertility.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Alice in Wonderland

    "No. observed reality"

    More like personal opinion.

    "Conservatism seeks to keep what works and dump what doesn’t. Feminism doesn’t work."

    As iSteve eloquently puts it, according to Who/Whom?

    "See countries with sub replacement fertility."

    There are a myriad of factors for nations which have that issue.

    , @John Johnson
    @Alice in Wonderland

    Conservatism seeks to keep what works and dump what doesn’t.

    Oh ok go ahead and call your local GOP rep and point out how many times tax cuts for the wealthy didn't lead to an increase in revenue.

    Then explain that race is real and that all the conservative theories around charter schools and NCLB type programs have failed.

    Also point out how may times the "Free market" didn't provide optimal results over a regulated market.

    I'm sure that phone call will go over well.

    Conservatives are hardly different than liberals when it comes to ignoring realities they don't like. They are sometimes preferable only because liberals have gone f-king nanners and think tranny bathroom behavior is something we should be debating.

    But if history is any guide the conservatives of the future will celebrate trannies in girls rooms as freedom while telling us they are adamantly opposed to legal pederastry. But they're serious this time.

  147. @Alice in Wonderland
    @Ray P




    There have also been quite a few man-o-sphere types who have defended behavour described as ‘sexual harassment’ on the ground that it is a natural expression of the sex instinct especially by males.
     
    Simply calling something 'sexual harassment' doesn't make it sexual harassment.

    Is smiling sexual harassment?

    Is talking sexual harassment?

    Is joking sexual harassment?

    Is offering to buy someone a drink sexual harassment?

    Replies: @Ray P, @Dmon, @Hypnotoad666

    As an employee of a large defense contractor, I was privileged to be one of the earliest recipients of formal anti-sexual harassment training (some 30-odd years ago next Thursday), and I can provide you with the exact verbatim definition of sexual harassment as stated in that mandatory class. To wit: “The perception of harassment is harassment”.

    So there you go – everything is harassment as long as a woman decides it’s harassment. It’s pretty much like racism or anti-semitism – a quantum phenomena whose state of existence changes depending on whether it’s noticed or not.

  148. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Where have the excess deaths over the last 6 months been more taking place? In more vaccinate or unvaccinated states?

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @Travis, @J.Ross

    https://www.usmortality.com/ Excess deaths are up in 2021 verse 2020 despite the fact that 70% of Adults were vaccinated by August and 78% of adults are currently vaccinated.

    Same situation in Europe. Excess deaths much higher for those aged 18-45. Excess deaths have increased as the vaccination rates have increased across Europe for young adults.

  149. @theMann
    @Reg Cæsar

    Well that is just ridiculous.

    Everybody knows the proper question is:
    Zoe, Inara, Kaylee, or River Tam?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Jim Don Bob

    No contest.

    • Replies: @theMann
    @Jim Don Bob

    Strong preference for Kaylee, by far the most feminine of the four; but, the point is that tastes differ, and one could hardly find four more different, but undeniably, beautiful women.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  150. The same goes for the word “reflects” which can 9 out of 10 times be replaced by a more normal phrase such as “is part of”.

    Something reflecting something of which it is part makes no sense in the first place, it has to be something outside. “This feminine phrase reflects feminization of discourse” is stupid. The discourse is getting more feminine, and part of that is that phrase.

    My new baby reflects the growing of my family
    These new trees reflect the growing of the forest
    My 60th birthday reflects my higher age
    The body in I see in the mirror is reflecting my own body.

    Stupid use of language masquerading as fancy use of language.

  151. @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    95/4 now since Rosie stopped having conversations with us.
     
    The most cartoonishly anti-male comment I've seen in over a decade here didn't come from Rosie, nor from Alden on one of her off days. (Alden and Jack D make many good comments, but are way too sensitive about their own demographics. Lighten up!)

    No, it came from Mr/Ms/Mx Camara, who reduced our entire sex to muh dick.

    The male sex can be sorted into two camps, those who think Loni Anderson was sexier, and those who know Jan Smithers was. Even Wikipedia agrees:

    Two generations of American males were judged by their answers to the question "Ginger or Mary Ann?" and "Jennifer or Bailey?", and both sets of women became cultural icons of their generations.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_Quarters#WKRP_roles
     

    Replies: @theMann, @Achmed E. Newman, @Sick of Orcs

    “Ginger or Mary Ann?”

    Beware the fury of a patient man, who answers, “Lovie Howell.”

  152. @Reg Cæsar
    @theMann


    Everybody knows the proper question is:
    Zoe, Inara, Kaylee, or River Tam?
     
    Who? Sorry, I'm not a brony.

    Replies: @theMann, @res

    Firefly, doofus

  153. @Travis
    @Muggles

    no more debates, no need for congress to pass legislation, everything is now mandated by the Executive branches of our Governments. No more need for state legislatures or congress. Just executive orders mandating compliance or lose your job.

    Steve stopped promoting the vaccines when he realized they are not 90% effective. Efficacy collapses after 6 months...yet he has failed to discuss the boosters ? Why has he failed to discuss the boosters ? Is Steve waiting for the Booster efficacy studies before he starts telling us to get a third dose ? Hard to have the data when we have no control group in the study and nobody over the age of 55 in the studies. He must realize the studies were bogus by now. He was hoodwinked because he trusted the "science". The same scientists who promote equity and deny that race exists he trusted with our lives.

    Steve no longer talks about excess deaths, yet excess deaths in 2021 are higher than 2020 even after 75% of adults have been vaccinated. I wonder if he realizes we have been scammed yet but is too embarrassed to discuss the harm caused to our nation from the lockdowns and mandates.

    I know it is difficult to admit when you are wrong.The vaccines failed to stop the spread. They failed to reduce hospitalizations. They failed to get America back to normal. Children are still forced to wear masks (even if they are vaccinated). And soon the boosters will be mandated here, like they are in Israel for a disease that has a fatality rate of 0.2% for Americans under the age of 70. Yet young cops, nurses and soldiers are now being fired for not getting vaccinated with a vaccine which does not prevent illness nor reduce the spread of the virus.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Muggles

    Travis, your response to my brief post is full of what psychologists call “transference.” That is, loading onto others issues that you yourself have failed to grasp/deal with/understand/solve.

    Your frustration is understandable but iSteve doesn’t claim to be a doctor nor does he give medical advice. Nor is he a disease researcher. He has no crystal ball nor any secret means to discover truths which evade everyone else. Why blame him here?

    The entire COVID-19 saga has been one of confusion, false claims, hope and despair and larded with bullying government “leaders” who want to glorify themselves by forcing others to do things. iSteve just posts info he obtains and sometimes analyzes. His own stated views are carefully hedged and have changed over time as more info is obtained.

    So your ire in your post is misplaced. This saga is not over. There is scientific evidence that prior infection does convey some valuable immunity. Also same for the vaxxes, but not like the early hype was claiming. Of course Our Leaders want to take credit for successes that have yet to happen. No surprise there.

    You are free here to post actual science facts which you think have been ignored. But you prefer to complain about our host. Pointless carping about what others “fail to do” solves nothing.

    • Troll: JimDandy
  154. @Old and Grumpy
    In a rarity I will defend all conversating women. You men have let women get the easy non debate victory for decades. What good many men do when the words get tough (or annoying) is scurry away. I get it is about keeping the peace on a personal level. Still it is a surefire means of victory for us. Now it is done on national level with "conversations." If I were a gambling woman, I bet on men rolling away here as well. You and your male ancestors dug this hole.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Mr Mox

    You and your male ancestors dug this hole.

    We learned centuries ago that the prize for winning the discussion meant sleeping on the couch.

  155. @JohnnyWalker123
    A "debate" is a back&forth argument. You submit one perspective, the other side submits a diverging view. Both sides advocate for their particular respective viewpoint.

    A "conversation" is basically a Q&A. You ask questions and get told answers. It's informative and inquisitive, but not contentious.

    In recent years, constraints around speech have tightened in the U.S. Many previously acceptable views have been placed outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Due to the increasingly narrow range of acceptable opinions, our public discussions now resemble a "conversation" (in which authorities tell us what we should think) rather than a "debate" (in which we say what we think).

    If you engage in "debate" and say something controversial, you get fired from your job. If you engage in "conversations" and ask thoughtful questions, you get promoted. This is why "debate" is declining, while "conversation" is on the rise.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @Mr Mox

    A “debate” is a back&forth argument. You submit one perspective, the other side submits a diverging view. Both sides advocate for their particular respective viewpoint.

    “I’d like to have an argument, please.”

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  156. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Herp McDerp

    Agreed, Mr. McDerp. "Issue" has been used for "problem" for 30 years. In the corporate world, the word is "challenge". "No, see, we don't use negative words like that. So, you have a challenge then?" "No, I quit - you all have a big fucking problem!"

    Replies: @Seneca44, @Herp McDerp

    That’s reminiscent of an apocryphal story about General Curtis LeMay:

    Aide: “Sir, we have a problem …”
    LeMay: “Hrrumph! We don’t have problems here — we have opportunities!
    Aide: “Sir, we have an insurmountable opportunity …”

  157. @Elmer T. Jones
    What, no "igniting" or "scrambling"? Example : "Administrators are scrambling to protect vulnerable minorities after racist incidents ignite uncomfortable online conversations."

    Replies: @Herp McDerp

    “Administrators are scrambling to protect vulnerable minorities after racist incidents ignite uncomfortable online conversations.”

    “Evil conservatives seized on the issue and pounced on those who sought to defend BIPOCs’ safe spaces.”

  158. @JohnnyWalker123
    The new phrase/term that I find most interesting is "space."

    I'm seeing that everywhere these days.

    "Deal space."
    "Twitter spaces."
    "Safe space."

    What's the deal with that?

    It's a cool word that's sort of useful, but also sort of BS. Hip young journalist/social influencer/intelligentsia types say it a lot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHB5S9JsfGc

    "Cannabis space."

    Replies: @ginger bread man, @Buzz Mohawk, @Lockean Proviso, @Herp McDerp

    The non-volumetric use of “space” was a characteristic verbal tic of people who were involved in est back in the 1970s. Then the cancer metastasized …

  159. @John Johnson
    @Corvinus

    That's not a representative from clown world.

    Taki is a bloggish magazine with alternative views that would never be mentioned in proper clown company.

    What I meant was when someone like Kalama is speaking on anything related to race.

    Usually a condescending tone is all that is needed and my BS detector goes off.

    Unlike Kalama and clown town I am fine with politely discussing everything including egalitarian views that conflict with my own. Pushing your beliefs by controlling dissent through social pressure and calling it a conversation is Orwellian.

    I'd prefer a more honest version where a clown appears on television and says "race doesn't exist so fuck you Whitey" and throws a pie at the camera. That's about the level of intellectual rigor that is beneath their one-way conversations.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “That’s not a representative from clown world… What I meant was when someone like Kalama is speaking on anything related to race.”

    More than likely, he is. But let us for fun say he is not. He did use the phrase that you said sets off your BS detector. So apparently it is only operational for people whom you personally designate as clown worthy. Well, you will need to recalibrate.

    “Usually a condescending tone is all that is needed and my BS detector goes off.”

    Right, that was Derbyshire’s tone. It’s patently obvious.

    “Pushing your beliefs by controlling dissent through social pressure and calling it a conversation is Orwellian.”

    You do realize the irony and hypocrisy, right? Then again, you don’t.

    “I’d prefer a more honest version where a clown appears on television and says “race doesn’t exist”…

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004
    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavery.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm

    Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”

    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    It's absolutely true: accepting European migrants in the mid-to-late 19th century was an objectively poor decision with terrible and long term consequences.

    Well said, Corvinus. You bring up excellent points and resources for us to reference.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Anonymous

  160. @Thirdtwin
    The prepositions do matter; The debate is always “over” something. “Over” denotes dominance, hence masculinity. The conversation is always “around” something. What is more feminine than “around”? When we say “talking around” we mean avoiding the problem at hand.

    What about “talking about” something? We could have a conversation “about” something, but “about” has a hard sound to it, like “debate”. It even contains the word “bout”, bringing to mind a fight, which is the essence of masculinity. The prepositions are chosen as carefully as the verbs.

    Replies: @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @Corvinus

    Basically, you are using subjective language to justify a personal preference.

    • Replies: @Thirdtwin
    @Corvinus

    You have to admit that I’ve got the hang of Critical Theory. Basically.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

  161. @Reg Cæsar
    @theMann


    Everybody knows the proper question is:
    Zoe, Inara, Kaylee, or River Tam?
     
    Who? Sorry, I'm not a brony.

    Replies: @theMann, @res

  162. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Where have the excess deaths over the last 6 months been more taking place? In more vaccinate or unvaccinated states?

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @Travis, @J.Ross

    what if there was data from other countries plus the past record of official mistakes and lies plus 100% mainstream doctors who disagree
    nawwwww never mind that would be crazy let’s just fire nurses, cops, and emergency workers plus vacation in mexico and mob up maskless at the wnba and the street and various restaurants plus have open borders and visit the elderly without a mask.
    cause that’s what you do in a pandemic. you really mainly want to get rid of nurses and hang out maskless in tropical countries with inferior medical care during a pandemic.

  163. @Muggles
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Hey, “I commented on blog!”

    This just sounds stupid to anyone from the Five Eyes — or to any naturalized person, like my wife who makes fun of it, with half a brain.
     
    And yet New Yorkers (or NYCers, and their media scriptwriters) always say "on line" whereas regular Americans elsewhere would say "I'm standing in line, and waiting."

    So the "on line" thing is a dead giveaway. (Pro tip: you can quickly raise prices by 20% and they won't complain.)

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Herp McDerp

    NASA types have a similar shibboleth: “on orbit” rather than “in orbit.”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Herp McDerp

    They're confusing that with "on station in orbit", trying to sound like the very intelligent White male engineers of the 1960's NASA.

  164. @Muggles
    Whenever I hear or read the term "conversation" used as this essay suggests, "I want to reach for my revolver" as the old Stalinist meme says.

    Yes, it is a female thing mostly. Or males who adopt that.

    It also seems directly related to women raising children, or teaching them in elementary school. One reason why our female-centric current reality is so screwed up is the absence of males in early childhood education. Especially since in male-absent households, young children need strong male role models. This is of course forbidden to say publicly.

    And how do most women deal with children, either in families or in schools? Talk down to them and order them about, tell them how to behave and threaten them (gently) with punishments for disobedience. Verbally abuse them or humiliate them publicly in front of others.

    Only when larger, older females lose control over disobedience do the male "cops" like daddy or the school principle (normally male) or if needed, sports coach, get called in for the dirty work.

    This is exactly how feminists and cultural anti male institutions and media treat men in general and especially those they wish to control. Women issue the threats and verbal warnings and when push comes to shove you call the men (or dykes in uniform) to administer the hard slaps or shots.

    All "conversations" in the current sense are basically this routine in some format.

    Of course nowadays this sometime conflicts with the numerous wild child "joggers" who have had no male discipline and thus are out looting, stealing, raping or murdering. If the men called in to stop the violence and crime act "too harshly" the schoolmarms of society cry racism and issue calls to punish the evil male peace keepers. White males only.

    When this fails to work (i.e. Seattle, Minneapolis, Oakland, NYC, et. al.) you have modern liberal dystopia. Then the commies (Woke leftys) have to resort to helicoptering in paper money.

    Didn't work in Afghanistan, won't work here.

    Of course this "conversation" I'm making now doesn't occur outside of the confines of Unz.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Right_On

    The original of your meme is: “When I hear the word culture …, I release the safety on my Browning!” It’s spoken by a character in a play by Hanns Johst, a Nazi sympathizer.

    Johst himself was actually very cultured. In 1943, he said, “The harder this war is becoming and the longer it takes, the more do we experience the clear certainty of the true value of culture. The intellectual and spiritual forces reveal their solace, their splendor, and their grace.”

    • Thanks: Muggles
  165. @Stephen Paul Foster
    Interesting observation of preposition trends. However, more insidious is pronoun manipulation -- first person plural -- used mainly by social justice types to fake "togetherness" and consensus on controversial issues and marginalize critics.

    As in: "our democracy", "our" values, "not who we are", "we need sensible gun control laws" etc.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Frau Katze

    I can’t stand “this is not who we are.”

    The conversation about the word “conversation” takes place in leftist circles and consists of what names to call those who won’t join it. The list is pretty standard now. Use “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe” and so on.

    New words can be invented as required, using “-phobe.” Transphobe, Islamophobe.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Frau Katze


    I can’t stand “this is not who we are.”
     
    Nor does it improve in translation:

    Ce n'est pas ce que nous sommes.
    Das ist nicht was wir sind.
    Det här är inte vem vi är.
    To nie jest kim jesteśmy.

    Questo non è quello che siamo.
    Δεν είμαστε αυτοί που είμαστε.
    Tämä ei ole ketä me olemme
    これではあ私たちは誰ですかりません

    Ĉi tio ne estas kiu ni estas.

  166. @Alice in Wonderland
    @Ray P

    Yeah, and here's the problem, the reverse is also considered harassment or discrimination, misogyny, or whatever.



    Not smiling is misogyny.

    Not talking is misogyny.

    Not joking is misogyny.

    Not offering to buy someone a drink is misogyny.

    Replies: @Ray P

    I guess I’ve been magnificently misogynistic to a lot of women.

    Better stop dreaming of the quiet life
    ’cause it’s the one we’ll never know
    And quit running for that runaway bus
    ’cause those rosy days are few, and
    Stop apologizing, for the things you’ve never done,
    ’cause time is short and life is cruel
    But it’s up to us to change
    This town called malice

    Rows and rows of disused milk floats
    Stand dying in the dairy yard
    And a hundred lonely housewives
    Clutch empty milk bottles to their hearts
    Hanging out their old love letters on the line to dry
    It’s enough to make you stop believing
    When tears come fast and furious
    In a town called Malice

  167. You learn so many new words at iSteve– conversating, donater, problematicalistic, robbery to…

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
    @Reg Cæsar


    You learn so many new words at iSteve– conversating, donater, problematicalistic, robbery to…
     
    ... problematicalistical
    ... problematicalisticulatory
    ... problematicalistification
    ... problematicalizationalize

    Made-up multisyllable words augmenting a woke agenda inspire awe. Deploy them accordingly.
  168. @Frau Katze
    @Stephen Paul Foster

    I can’t stand “this is not who we are.”

    The conversation about the word “conversation” takes place in leftist circles and consists of what names to call those who won’t join it. The list is pretty standard now. Use “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe” and so on.

    New words can be invented as required, using “-phobe.” Transphobe, Islamophobe.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I can’t stand “this is not who we are.”

    Nor does it improve in translation:

    Ce n’est pas ce que nous sommes.
    Das ist nicht was wir sind.
    Det här är inte vem vi är.
    To nie jest kim jesteśmy.

    Questo non è quello che siamo.
    Δεν είμαστε αυτοί που είμαστε.
    Tämä ei ole ketä me olemme
    これではあ私たちは誰ですかりません

    Ĉi tio ne estas kiu ni estas.

  169. @Alice in Wonderland
    @Corvinus


    “wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism.”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

     

    No.

    observed reality

    Conservatism seeks to keep what works and dump what doesn't. Feminism doesn't work. It exacerbates inequality and harms children. It is a losing strategy. It is maladaptive and societies that embrace it go into decline. See countries with sub replacement fertility.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @John Johnson

    “No. observed reality”

    More like personal opinion.

    “Conservatism seeks to keep what works and dump what doesn’t. Feminism doesn’t work.”

    As iSteve eloquently puts it, according to Who/Whom?

    “See countries with sub replacement fertility.”

    There are a myriad of factors for nations which have that issue.

  170. @Corvinus
    @Thirdtwin

    Basically, you are using subjective language to justify a personal preference.

    Replies: @Thirdtwin

    You have to admit that I’ve got the hang of Critical Theory. Basically.

    • Agree: Boomthorkell
    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Thirdtwin

    It's why he is sore about it. This is his common rheotorical trick when someone has clearly called out something.

    "It's subjective", as if any instance of observed reality that he is not personally stating is reality is merely the mental creation of an unstable sensory apparatus.

    You've got it down pat.

  171. @Alice in Wonderland
    @Corvinus


    “wouldn’t admit that feminism cannot be a part of real Conservativism.”

    No True Scotsman Fallacy.

     

    No.

    observed reality

    Conservatism seeks to keep what works and dump what doesn't. Feminism doesn't work. It exacerbates inequality and harms children. It is a losing strategy. It is maladaptive and societies that embrace it go into decline. See countries with sub replacement fertility.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @John Johnson

    Conservatism seeks to keep what works and dump what doesn’t.

    Oh ok go ahead and call your local GOP rep and point out how many times tax cuts for the wealthy didn’t lead to an increase in revenue.

    Then explain that race is real and that all the conservative theories around charter schools and NCLB type programs have failed.

    Also point out how may times the “Free market” didn’t provide optimal results over a regulated market.

    I’m sure that phone call will go over well.

    Conservatives are hardly different than liberals when it comes to ignoring realities they don’t like. They are sometimes preferable only because liberals have gone f-king nanners and think tranny bathroom behavior is something we should be debating.

    But if history is any guide the conservatives of the future will celebrate trannies in girls rooms as freedom while telling us they are adamantly opposed to legal pederastry. But they’re serious this time.

  172. “Dialogue” as a verb is always good for a laugh.

    If someone wants “to dialogue,” your role is simply SHUT UP, allowing dialoguer “space” to steamroll you with currently woke buzzwordery.

    • Replies: @Thirdtwin
    @Pat Kittle

    Or “ask” as a noun. Usually, the dialoguer also has the ask.

  173. @Corvinus
    @John Johnson

    “That’s not a representative from clown world… What I meant was when someone like Kalama is speaking on anything related to race.”

    More than likely, he is. But let us for fun say he is not. He did use the phrase that you said sets off your BS detector. So apparently it is only operational for people whom you personally designate as clown worthy. Well, you will need to recalibrate.

    “Usually a condescending tone is all that is needed and my BS detector goes off.”

    Right, that was Derbyshire’s tone. It’s patently obvious.

    “Pushing your beliefs by controlling dissent through social pressure and calling it a conversation is Orwellian.”

    You do realize the irony and hypocrisy, right? Then again, you don’t.

    “I’d prefer a more honest version where a clown appears on television and says “race doesn’t exist”…

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004
    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavery.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm

    Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”

    So, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    It’s absolutely true: accepting European migrants in the mid-to-late 19th century was an objectively poor decision with terrible and long term consequences.

    Well said, Corvinus. You bring up excellent points and resources for us to reference.

    • LOL: Thirdtwin
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Boomthorkell

    “It’s absolutely true: accepting European migrants in the mid-to-late 19th century was an objectively poor decision with terrible and long term consequences.”

    For some people, assuredly. For others, not really. But at least you are honest enough to show your anti-white sentiment, as well as an elitist mentality.

    “Well said, Corvinus. You bring up excellent points and resources for us to reference.“

    Exactly. As far as who is a superior race, it is subjective in nature.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    , @Anonymous
    @Boomthorkell

    Right, it was good for the 'ethnic' immigrants but bad for the WASPs (barring a few millionaires). Similarly, today's Afro/Asian/Latino immigration is good for the immigrants but bad for whites (with the same exceptions.)

  174. @Reg Cæsar
    You learn so many new words at iSteve-- conversating, donater, problematicalistic, robbery to...

    Replies: @Pat Kittle

    You learn so many new words at iSteve– conversating, donater, problematicalistic, robbery to…

    … problematicalistical
    … problematicalisticulatory
    … problematicalistification
    … problematicalizationalize

    Made-up multisyllable words augmenting a woke agenda inspire awe. Deploy them accordingly.

  175. @Herp McDerp
    @Muggles

    NASA types have a similar shibboleth: "on orbit" rather than "in orbit."

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    They’re confusing that with “on station in orbit”, trying to sound like the very intelligent White male engineers of the 1960’s NASA.

  176. @Pat Kittle
    "Dialogue" as a verb is always good for a laugh.

    If someone wants "to dialogue," your role is simply SHUT UP, allowing dialoguer "space" to steamroll you with currently woke buzzwordery.

    Replies: @Thirdtwin

    Or “ask” as a noun. Usually, the dialoguer also has the ask.

  177. The original post is a neat observation.

    On the other hand, I wonder who most sees reality, and who confuses it for their own reflection?

    The “rational” supposedly masculine “debater?”

    Or the feelings sharing “conversationalist”?

    Were you to have a magic crystal ball into which you only need look to see the future, you would also need to recognise every part of your own reflection in order to differentiate it and pick out that future clearly. Scrying the present is just as hard.

    If most of the comments are written by people who are certain that this is not a problem for them, then most of the comments are written by people suffocated by delusion.

    Switching this round, to the “feelings sharer”, they too tend to blind hypocrisy. This is noted here by the fact that the supposed “conversation” is usually anything but, just as the supposed masculine “debate” whereby people are arguing objectively, is anything but. There’s no intellectual humility and basically zero curiosity. Hence the descriptor “mansplaining.” Objectivity requires endless curiosity and intellectual humility.

    Feelings are like a smile. You can share them, but they remain irredeemably yours. What the people who think they are merely sharing them are actually hoping to do is to make everyone else responsible for them, so they need not be responsible for themselves. In their supposedly oh so empathetic way, they can only accept feelings which match their own. This, like with the midwit “debater”, is a sign of superficiality, and, ironically, is even a sign of a total empathy failure. They can’t recognise their own contradicting feelings, as anyone will have about cany omplicated subject, so, in their fear of uncertainty, they need everyone else to validate them. In this way, they also lack curiosity and humility, but now about their own feelings and those of others. Were someone to touch my hair, I would be very curious as to why they felt they wanted to. This, time a million, were they to racially hate me, but notice that there’s zero curiosity in this direction.

    Once you point this all out to people, you can usually see the cogs whir as they think “but this is how things in my life are.” Either “all of the men are mansplaining narcissists who coldly manipulate and then rage” or “all of the women are borderline lunatics who can’t think objectively before getting offended by me.”

    But people create their own lives and their own dynamics. Society may have general trends that truly reflect some stereotypes, but these are not extreme. If your own experiences are very extreme then that is likely because you seek extremity out and incentivise it, probably because you need your own balance.

    “TL, you’re just making generalised statements and what you’re saying has no practical use for manipulating other people. It is only asking me to do some introspection.”

    Yes and no! Be curious if you can tell your reflection from external reality, but also realise that if you are rational and you want to communicate, you need to meet people roughly half way. If those you disagree with see themselves as valuing the sharing of feelings, then learn to share yours and own them and take responsibility for them. Otherwise, they just perceive you as dishonestly hiding them behind selectively biased “facts” and motivated “analysis.” Of course everyone knows this, because people only hide their feelings in a debate because a deep part of them is fearful that the other person will judge them and devalue them for potentially motivated reasoning, but whose judgement, if not actually their own correct one, is that person truly afraid of?

    • Replies: @Mehen
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Welcome back, luv.

    Did Ron heed my call?

    https://www.unz.com/runz/is-the-tide-finally-turning-on-covid-as-an-american-biowarfare-attack/?showcomments#comment-4946014

    ...or is it just coincidence?

    In any case -- what's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?

  178. @Jim Don Bob
    @theMann

    No contest.

    https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F17800000%2FInara-Serra-tv-female-characters-17862533-1920-1200.jpg

    Replies: @theMann

    Strong preference for Kaylee, by far the most feminine of the four; but, the point is that tastes differ, and one could hardly find four more different, but undeniably, beautiful women.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @theMann

    Firefly was a great show with some of the best dialog I have ever heard on a TV show.

  179. @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    It's absolutely true: accepting European migrants in the mid-to-late 19th century was an objectively poor decision with terrible and long term consequences.

    Well said, Corvinus. You bring up excellent points and resources for us to reference.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Anonymous

    “It’s absolutely true: accepting European migrants in the mid-to-late 19th century was an objectively poor decision with terrible and long term consequences.”

    For some people, assuredly. For others, not really. But at least you are honest enough to show your anti-white sentiment, as well as an elitist mentality.

    “Well said, Corvinus. You bring up excellent points and resources for us to reference.“

    Exactly. As far as who is a superior race, it is subjective in nature.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    Anti-white?

    Nah, more like anti-long term faulty ethno/cultural integration. Similar enough haplogroups doesn't mean cultural or government compatibility.

    Subjective and objective. Both and at different times.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  180. @Alice in Wonderland
    @Ray P




    There have also been quite a few man-o-sphere types who have defended behavour described as ‘sexual harassment’ on the ground that it is a natural expression of the sex instinct especially by males.
     
    Simply calling something 'sexual harassment' doesn't make it sexual harassment.

    Is smiling sexual harassment?

    Is talking sexual harassment?

    Is joking sexual harassment?

    Is offering to buy someone a drink sexual harassment?

    Replies: @Ray P, @Dmon, @Hypnotoad666

    If a woman doesn’t appreciate the initial attention it is sexual harassment. But if she changes her mind and dates the perp voluntarily then it wasn’t sexual harassment after all. If they break up acrimoniously, however, then it retroactively becomes harassment again. If they stay together and get married, then it is just a cute story about how “mommy met daddy” at work.

  181. @John Johnson
    @Hypnotoad666

    The rise of “conversation” may have something to do with female preference for consensus over disagreement. But it also has the effect taking certain viewpoints off the table. Your wife is more likely to have a “conversation” with you about why you are wrong and need to change, than a “debate” which allows the possibility that you could be right about something.

    Women value social stability over disagreement and this is especially true for issues like race or gender where unwanted truths can upend what they feel is an invested truth. Even if they can see that some of your arguments have merit they will still balance this against the stability of the order. Or in other words they will just nullify your rational arguments because they could disrupt everything they have worked towards.

    Men are more likely to challenge the ruling order and this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. A man takes a risk to challenge the alpha male and it is a heads or tails outcome. They have far more to gain/lose with such a challenge.

    Women don't have to take that risk and prefer a stable environment for their offspring even if it means the alpha male or ruling order can be unfair at times.

    Now all of this evolutionary baggage should of course be dropped at the university door but that isn't the case. Women have taken over fields that are related to race and gender with predictable results. Nothing is challenged and anyone that questions the egalitarian order must be racist/mean/ignorant/etc. This might feel just to the women but this leads to all kinds of problems. When feelings-based programs fail there isn't any questioning as to why that might be. Must just be racism of course.

    Replies: @Alice in Wonderland, @Alice in Wonderland, @Hypnotoad666

    A man takes a risk to challenge the alpha male and it is a heads or tails outcome. They have far more to gain/lose with such a challenge.

    Quite right. In the intellectual sphere (hopefully not taking the metaphor too far), the old male ethos was that ideas became dominant through “trial by combat.” The strongest idea won and got to lead until a challenger idea dethroned it on the field of rational debate and evidence. Academics took great pride in proving their colleagues wrong.

    In the female ethos, intellectual dominance is determined by consensus. And the consensus is maintained not by intellectual combat with the challenger, but by marginalizing and ostracizing those challengers with innuendo, gossip and politics.

    These are gross generalizations perhaps. But I’m certain the feminization of the academy and public discourse has been a huge factor in just about everything (mostly negative) going on in the country.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Hypnotoad666


    In the intellectual sphere (hopefully not taking the metaphor too far), the old male ethos was that ideas became dominant through “trial by combat.” The strongest idea won and got to lead until a challenger idea dethroned it on the field of rational debate and evidence. Academics took great pride in proving their colleagues wrong.
     
    Name one time that has happened outside of things that can be proven in, at least, laboratory adjacent settings.

    gross generalizations
     
    No, you are describing a total fantasy.
  182. @Twinkie
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco


    The only age demographic not seeing excess deaths in the UK and America are children under 17. Strange, since they are the only group not eligible for vaccinations from the deadly coronavirus.
     
    American youths age 13 and up are eligible for vaccination. All my kids 13 and up have been. We will likely see the approval for kids 5-12 (in reduced doses) in the next several weeks, at which point the rest of my kids will be.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    American youths age 13 and up are eligible for vaccination. All my kids 13 and up have been. We will likely see the approval for kids 5-12 (in reduced doses) in the next several weeks, at which point the rest of my kids will be.

    Sorry, that should have been 12 and 5-11 respectively.

  183. @Hypnotoad666
    @John Johnson


    A man takes a risk to challenge the alpha male and it is a heads or tails outcome. They have far more to gain/lose with such a challenge.
     
    Quite right. In the intellectual sphere (hopefully not taking the metaphor too far), the old male ethos was that ideas became dominant through "trial by combat." The strongest idea won and got to lead until a challenger idea dethroned it on the field of rational debate and evidence. Academics took great pride in proving their colleagues wrong.

    In the female ethos, intellectual dominance is determined by consensus. And the consensus is maintained not by intellectual combat with the challenger, but by marginalizing and ostracizing those challengers with innuendo, gossip and politics.

    These are gross generalizations perhaps. But I'm certain the feminization of the academy and public discourse has been a huge factor in just about everything (mostly negative) going on in the country.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    In the intellectual sphere (hopefully not taking the metaphor too far), the old male ethos was that ideas became dominant through “trial by combat.” The strongest idea won and got to lead until a challenger idea dethroned it on the field of rational debate and evidence. Academics took great pride in proving their colleagues wrong.

    Name one time that has happened outside of things that can be proven in, at least, laboratory adjacent settings.

    gross generalizations

    No, you are describing a total fantasy.

  184. Name one time that has happened outside of things that can be proven in, at least, laboratory adjacent settings.

    Why exclude “lab adjacent.” My whole point is to talk about areas in which evidence and reason can supply an objective “winner” idea. That’s what happened in all of the scientific paradigm shifts from the heliocentric solar system, to plate tectonics, to an asteroid killing the dinosaurs, to DNA research refuting the “Blank Slate” theory.

    Arm-waiving disciplines like gender studies, cultural anthropology, critical race theory, or whatever can keep their group consensus going forever because they are merely non-falsifiable interpretations about what “truth” should be socially constructed.

    It’s interesting that female representation in all areas is considered essential because women supposedly contribute a “diverse” approach to problems. But yet it’s also verboten to talk about what those “diverse” approaches might be.

    So do women “think different, or not?” The male “combat” approach would be to logically compile the evidence and figure out which proposition is true, and why. The female consensus approach would be that both things are always true and untrue, depending on which outcome promotes the social consensus that would benefit women the most.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Hypnotoad666

    I see you concede my point. Science that is testable continues to be science, with some taboo areas, like always. What veers into art continues to veer into art, be valuable but to often go maddeningly into political or religious fashions.

    I am not interested addressing logical contradictions in the arguments for "representation." Those who propose it offer more than just the logic you offer. They also state how important it is to their feelings and sense of wellbeing. Perhaps people shouldn't be so silly, but at least they try to own their silliness, rather than pretend it isn't there.

    Do you find it emotionally difficult when people denigrate or exclude those who fit the various identity criteria which you sympathise with? It is pretty normal and, since there is no "fair", a concern that is worth paying attention to. Certainly, if you don't, that unattended to hurt will wreak havoc with what you perceive as your objectivity.

  185. @theMann
    @Jim Don Bob

    Strong preference for Kaylee, by far the most feminine of the four; but, the point is that tastes differ, and one could hardly find four more different, but undeniably, beautiful women.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Firefly was a great show with some of the best dialog I have ever heard on a TV show.

  186. @Hypnotoad666

    Name one time that has happened outside of things that can be proven in, at least, laboratory adjacent settings.
     
    Why exclude "lab adjacent." My whole point is to talk about areas in which evidence and reason can supply an objective "winner" idea. That's what happened in all of the scientific paradigm shifts from the heliocentric solar system, to plate tectonics, to an asteroid killing the dinosaurs, to DNA research refuting the "Blank Slate" theory.

    Arm-waiving disciplines like gender studies, cultural anthropology, critical race theory, or whatever can keep their group consensus going forever because they are merely non-falsifiable interpretations about what "truth" should be socially constructed.

    It's interesting that female representation in all areas is considered essential because women supposedly contribute a "diverse" approach to problems. But yet it's also verboten to talk about what those "diverse" approaches might be.

    So do women "think different, or not?" The male "combat" approach would be to logically compile the evidence and figure out which proposition is true, and why. The female consensus approach would be that both things are always true and untrue, depending on which outcome promotes the social consensus that would benefit women the most.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I see you concede my point. Science that is testable continues to be science, with some taboo areas, like always. What veers into art continues to veer into art, be valuable but to often go maddeningly into political or religious fashions.

    I am not interested addressing logical contradictions in the arguments for “representation.” Those who propose it offer more than just the logic you offer. They also state how important it is to their feelings and sense of wellbeing. Perhaps people shouldn’t be so silly, but at least they try to own their silliness, rather than pretend it isn’t there.

    Do you find it emotionally difficult when people denigrate or exclude those who fit the various identity criteria which you sympathise with? It is pretty normal and, since there is no “fair”, a concern that is worth paying attention to. Certainly, if you don’t, that unattended to hurt will wreak havoc with what you perceive as your objectivity.

  187. @Corvinus
    @Boomthorkell

    “It’s absolutely true: accepting European migrants in the mid-to-late 19th century was an objectively poor decision with terrible and long term consequences.”

    For some people, assuredly. For others, not really. But at least you are honest enough to show your anti-white sentiment, as well as an elitist mentality.

    “Well said, Corvinus. You bring up excellent points and resources for us to reference.“

    Exactly. As far as who is a superior race, it is subjective in nature.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    Anti-white?

    Nah, more like anti-long term faulty ethno/cultural integration. Similar enough haplogroups doesn’t mean cultural or government compatibility.

    Subjective and objective. Both and at different times.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Boomthorkell

    “Anti-white?”

    Absolutely. You arbitrarily place a pecking order—certain whites are inherently better than others. It’s at the expense of white unity. When you tout that your ethnic whiteness is special, you alienate your own kind.

    “Nah, more like anti-long term faulty ethno/cultural integration.”

    Gobblygook on your part. Pray tell, what is your ethnic breakdown?

    “Similar enough haplogroups doesn’t mean cultural or government compatibility.”

    Elitist claptrap.

    “Subjective and objective. Both and at different times”

    So basically you decide on a whim.

    All told, you embrace anti-whiteness in a similar fashion as a Jew. Congratulations.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

  188. @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    Anti-white?

    Nah, more like anti-long term faulty ethno/cultural integration. Similar enough haplogroups doesn't mean cultural or government compatibility.

    Subjective and objective. Both and at different times.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Anti-white?”

    Absolutely. You arbitrarily place a pecking order—certain whites are inherently better than others. It’s at the expense of white unity. When you tout that your ethnic whiteness is special, you alienate your own kind.

    “Nah, more like anti-long term faulty ethno/cultural integration.”

    Gobblygook on your part. Pray tell, what is your ethnic breakdown?

    “Similar enough haplogroups doesn’t mean cultural or government compatibility.”

    Elitist claptrap.

    “Subjective and objective. Both and at different times”

    So basically you decide on a whim.

    All told, you embrace anti-whiteness in a similar fashion as a Jew. Congratulations.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    I'm confused, I don't recall touting that my ethnic whiteness was more special than others (it certainly is special! Everyone should think their ethnicity special and find what is good in it!) Others may, and that is of course a healthy thing in its own regard. Better a people love themselves too much than despise themselves if we are going to the extreme ends.

    He he he he he, you act as if you're catching me in some logical argument. I'm going to tell you right now, Poles and Russians are genetically related peoples, but Poles and Russians shouldn't share the same country. Maybe if they had the same form of Christianity, it might work.

    Similarly, the Russians shouldn't live under the Germans and vice versa (not in large numbers, at least. Germans certainly lived in Russia, and even in influential positions at times, but never were a competitive plurality). See, related White Races, but a bit damn silly to start acting like they are being "White Exclusionist" ha ha ha.

    There is a danger to dumping a bunch of Monarchist Euros from Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe on a largely Anglo (with a chunk of German) Republican-tradition territory. That's just politics and culture. This is the similar reason to why Japan shouldn't import millions of Vietnamese or Chinese.

    ANGLO-CELT, BABY! With a touch of Belgian! Even if I were a fully assimilated Italo-Pole, the point would still be correct.

    You've almost got it! Except my whims are correct and based on fact, historical context and reasoning, just I'm sure all of your ideas on what is subjective and objective most surely are. If you at any point think your beliefs don't actual have a connection to an objective reality, I recommend you stop sharing them at all because what's the point?

    He he he he, nice try at that last part. I find it funny you think I would care either way. I'll play ball though! First, you have to tell me...which Jews? Do you mean all Jews? Some Jews? What kind of Jew?

    I thought you got your panties all in a bunch when Steve said something about this!

    Replies: @Corvinus

  189. @Thirdtwin
    @Corvinus

    You have to admit that I’ve got the hang of Critical Theory. Basically.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    It’s why he is sore about it. This is his common rheotorical trick when someone has clearly called out something.

    “It’s subjective”, as if any instance of observed reality that he is not personally stating is reality is merely the mental creation of an unstable sensory apparatus.

    You’ve got it down pat.

  190. @Corvinus
    @Boomthorkell

    “Anti-white?”

    Absolutely. You arbitrarily place a pecking order—certain whites are inherently better than others. It’s at the expense of white unity. When you tout that your ethnic whiteness is special, you alienate your own kind.

    “Nah, more like anti-long term faulty ethno/cultural integration.”

    Gobblygook on your part. Pray tell, what is your ethnic breakdown?

    “Similar enough haplogroups doesn’t mean cultural or government compatibility.”

    Elitist claptrap.

    “Subjective and objective. Both and at different times”

    So basically you decide on a whim.

    All told, you embrace anti-whiteness in a similar fashion as a Jew. Congratulations.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    I’m confused, I don’t recall touting that my ethnic whiteness was more special than others (it certainly is special! Everyone should think their ethnicity special and find what is good in it!) Others may, and that is of course a healthy thing in its own regard. Better a people love themselves too much than despise themselves if we are going to the extreme ends.

    He he he he he, you act as if you’re catching me in some logical argument. I’m going to tell you right now, Poles and Russians are genetically related peoples, but Poles and Russians shouldn’t share the same country. Maybe if they had the same form of Christianity, it might work.

    Similarly, the Russians shouldn’t live under the Germans and vice versa (not in large numbers, at least. Germans certainly lived in Russia, and even in influential positions at times, but never were a competitive plurality). See, related White Races, but a bit damn silly to start acting like they are being “White Exclusionist” ha ha ha.

    There is a danger to dumping a bunch of Monarchist Euros from Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe on a largely Anglo (with a chunk of German) Republican-tradition territory. That’s just politics and culture. This is the similar reason to why Japan shouldn’t import millions of Vietnamese or Chinese.

    ANGLO-CELT, BABY! With a touch of Belgian! Even if I were a fully assimilated Italo-Pole, the point would still be correct.

    You’ve almost got it! Except my whims are correct and based on fact, historical context and reasoning, just I’m sure all of your ideas on what is subjective and objective most surely are. If you at any point think your beliefs don’t actual have a connection to an objective reality, I recommend you stop sharing them at all because what’s the point?

    He he he he, nice try at that last part. I find it funny you think I would care either way. I’ll play ball though! First, you have to tell me…which Jews? Do you mean all Jews? Some Jews? What kind of Jew?

    I thought you got your panties all in a bunch when Steve said something about this!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Boomthorkell

    “I’m confused, I don’t recall touting that my ethnic whiteness was more special than others (it certainly is special!”

    By aligning your views to Madison Grant’s ethnic hierarchy, you most assuredly are stating your whiteness is inherently superior, aka “more special”, than other ethnicities.

    “Poles and Russians are genetically related peoples”

    As whites.

    “but Poles and Russians shouldn’t share the same country.”

    In the U.S., they do. Why shouldn’t they? So how exactly is their ethnic traits other than compatible in the predominant American cultural or governmental sense, because that is your implication.

    “There is a danger to dumping a bunch of Monarchist Euros from Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe on a largely Anglo (with a chunk of German) Republican-tradition territory.”

    You have to show evidence of those dangers rather than make the accusation. That’s just politics and culture.

    “This is the similar reason to why Japan shouldn’t import millions of Vietnamese or Chinese.”

    America and Japan are not analogous. The U.S. from the jump had various ethnicities that helped to build its character as a country. You are claiming that a certain specific type of European is most desirable without the requisite proof.

    “ANGLO-CELT, BABY! With a touch of Belgian! Even if I were a fully assimilated Italo-Pole, the point would still be correct.”

    The point has yet to be made.

    “Except my whims are correct and based on fact, historical context and reasoning”

    Again, you haven’t made the case. How exactly did one group of Europeans—chiefly those from Eastern and Southern parts—demonstrate then (early 1900s) and even now that they lack ability to comprehend and apply “Anglo Saxon” inspired American based principles like freedom, work ethic, and Republican government?

    “First, you have to tell me…which Jews? Do you mean all Jews? Some Jews? What kind of Jew?”

    Now you’re just clowning. All of them of course. They are treacherous globalists. That’s the message from a number of posters here. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

  191. @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    I'm confused, I don't recall touting that my ethnic whiteness was more special than others (it certainly is special! Everyone should think their ethnicity special and find what is good in it!) Others may, and that is of course a healthy thing in its own regard. Better a people love themselves too much than despise themselves if we are going to the extreme ends.

    He he he he he, you act as if you're catching me in some logical argument. I'm going to tell you right now, Poles and Russians are genetically related peoples, but Poles and Russians shouldn't share the same country. Maybe if they had the same form of Christianity, it might work.

    Similarly, the Russians shouldn't live under the Germans and vice versa (not in large numbers, at least. Germans certainly lived in Russia, and even in influential positions at times, but never were a competitive plurality). See, related White Races, but a bit damn silly to start acting like they are being "White Exclusionist" ha ha ha.

    There is a danger to dumping a bunch of Monarchist Euros from Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe on a largely Anglo (with a chunk of German) Republican-tradition territory. That's just politics and culture. This is the similar reason to why Japan shouldn't import millions of Vietnamese or Chinese.

    ANGLO-CELT, BABY! With a touch of Belgian! Even if I were a fully assimilated Italo-Pole, the point would still be correct.

    You've almost got it! Except my whims are correct and based on fact, historical context and reasoning, just I'm sure all of your ideas on what is subjective and objective most surely are. If you at any point think your beliefs don't actual have a connection to an objective reality, I recommend you stop sharing them at all because what's the point?

    He he he he, nice try at that last part. I find it funny you think I would care either way. I'll play ball though! First, you have to tell me...which Jews? Do you mean all Jews? Some Jews? What kind of Jew?

    I thought you got your panties all in a bunch when Steve said something about this!

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I’m confused, I don’t recall touting that my ethnic whiteness was more special than others (it certainly is special!”

    By aligning your views to Madison Grant’s ethnic hierarchy, you most assuredly are stating your whiteness is inherently superior, aka “more special”, than other ethnicities.

    “Poles and Russians are genetically related peoples”

    As whites.

    “but Poles and Russians shouldn’t share the same country.”

    In the U.S., they do. Why shouldn’t they? So how exactly is their ethnic traits other than compatible in the predominant American cultural or governmental sense, because that is your implication.

    “There is a danger to dumping a bunch of Monarchist Euros from Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe on a largely Anglo (with a chunk of German) Republican-tradition territory.”

    You have to show evidence of those dangers rather than make the accusation. That’s just politics and culture.

    “This is the similar reason to why Japan shouldn’t import millions of Vietnamese or Chinese.”

    America and Japan are not analogous. The U.S. from the jump had various ethnicities that helped to build its character as a country. You are claiming that a certain specific type of European is most desirable without the requisite proof.

    “ANGLO-CELT, BABY! With a touch of Belgian! Even if I were a fully assimilated Italo-Pole, the point would still be correct.”

    The point has yet to be made.

    “Except my whims are correct and based on fact, historical context and reasoning”

    Again, you haven’t made the case. How exactly did one group of Europeans—chiefly those from Eastern and Southern parts—demonstrate then (early 1900s) and even now that they lack ability to comprehend and apply “Anglo Saxon” inspired American based principles like freedom, work ethic, and Republican government?

    “First, you have to tell me…which Jews? Do you mean all Jews? Some Jews? What kind of Jew?”

    Now you’re just clowning. All of them of course. They are treacherous globalists. That’s the message from a number of posters here. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    Hmm, what makes you think I am?

    Their cultural traits are incompatible. Too many Euros from Not-The-Right-Background were brought in, and trouble ensued. Small numbers of individuals can be assimilated into a functioning Republic, but too many at once leads to exactly the kind of political exploitation and "factory" schooling that the 19th-century immigration brought.

    The evidence is Factory Schooling, the political corruption that ensued from immigrant voting blocs, and the gradual de-democratization of society. If you don't want to research it or acknowledge it, don't. It doesn't matter if you personally do not because it was and the effects are with us to this day.

    Lol, from the beginning America was almost entirely Anglo-Celt with a bit of German and Dutch. It wasn't founded and settled by Romanians and Lithuanians. Even the Dutch aspect was incredibly regional. Try again.

    Eh, if you don't see it, you don't. What else is there to say to one who is so wrong they refuse to acknowledge even the very mainstream facts such as the introduction of Factory Schooling, Bloc Voting, Slave ethics, etc. The funniest part is watching how it unfurls in this day and age. That's a real laugh!

    Nah, you're the one taking the stance. You tell me, bub. If you can't explain properly the view you are temporarily adopting for rhetorical purposes in an attempt to...I don't know, out "right" me? (a comical concept, I love when I watch demon-worshippers try to out-Christian people!), then don't bother trying to say "I'm acting like a Jew." Now, if you can explain the different social and political concepts amongst the Jewish peoples and the following stereotypes and where my own views might be comparable, then you've got something!

    If I were Corvinus, I would stop and go "Well, do I want to compare him to an Israeli National Populist? Do I want to compare him to a Pan-Hebraic (This would be most accurate)? A Rabbinical extremist? An American "Liberal Jewish Nationalist", etc." this would be the proper train of comparison.

  192. @Corvinus
    @Boomthorkell

    “I’m confused, I don’t recall touting that my ethnic whiteness was more special than others (it certainly is special!”

    By aligning your views to Madison Grant’s ethnic hierarchy, you most assuredly are stating your whiteness is inherently superior, aka “more special”, than other ethnicities.

    “Poles and Russians are genetically related peoples”

    As whites.

    “but Poles and Russians shouldn’t share the same country.”

    In the U.S., they do. Why shouldn’t they? So how exactly is their ethnic traits other than compatible in the predominant American cultural or governmental sense, because that is your implication.

    “There is a danger to dumping a bunch of Monarchist Euros from Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe on a largely Anglo (with a chunk of German) Republican-tradition territory.”

    You have to show evidence of those dangers rather than make the accusation. That’s just politics and culture.

    “This is the similar reason to why Japan shouldn’t import millions of Vietnamese or Chinese.”

    America and Japan are not analogous. The U.S. from the jump had various ethnicities that helped to build its character as a country. You are claiming that a certain specific type of European is most desirable without the requisite proof.

    “ANGLO-CELT, BABY! With a touch of Belgian! Even if I were a fully assimilated Italo-Pole, the point would still be correct.”

    The point has yet to be made.

    “Except my whims are correct and based on fact, historical context and reasoning”

    Again, you haven’t made the case. How exactly did one group of Europeans—chiefly those from Eastern and Southern parts—demonstrate then (early 1900s) and even now that they lack ability to comprehend and apply “Anglo Saxon” inspired American based principles like freedom, work ethic, and Republican government?

    “First, you have to tell me…which Jews? Do you mean all Jews? Some Jews? What kind of Jew?”

    Now you’re just clowning. All of them of course. They are treacherous globalists. That’s the message from a number of posters here. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    Hmm, what makes you think I am?

    Their cultural traits are incompatible. Too many Euros from Not-The-Right-Background were brought in, and trouble ensued. Small numbers of individuals can be assimilated into a functioning Republic, but too many at once leads to exactly the kind of political exploitation and “factory” schooling that the 19th-century immigration brought.

    The evidence is Factory Schooling, the political corruption that ensued from immigrant voting blocs, and the gradual de-democratization of society. If you don’t want to research it or acknowledge it, don’t. It doesn’t matter if you personally do not because it was and the effects are with us to this day.

    Lol, from the beginning America was almost entirely Anglo-Celt with a bit of German and Dutch. It wasn’t founded and settled by Romanians and Lithuanians. Even the Dutch aspect was incredibly regional. Try again.

    Eh, if you don’t see it, you don’t. What else is there to say to one who is so wrong they refuse to acknowledge even the very mainstream facts such as the introduction of Factory Schooling, Bloc Voting, Slave ethics, etc. The funniest part is watching how it unfurls in this day and age. That’s a real laugh!

    Nah, you’re the one taking the stance. You tell me, bub. If you can’t explain properly the view you are temporarily adopting for rhetorical purposes in an attempt to…I don’t know, out “right” me? (a comical concept, I love when I watch demon-worshippers try to out-Christian people!), then don’t bother trying to say “I’m acting like a Jew.” Now, if you can explain the different social and political concepts amongst the Jewish peoples and the following stereotypes and where my own views might be comparable, then you’ve got something!

    If I were Corvinus, I would stop and go “Well, do I want to compare him to an Israeli National Populist? Do I want to compare him to a Pan-Hebraic (This would be most accurate)? A Rabbinical extremist? An American “Liberal Jewish Nationalist”, etc.” this would be the proper train of comparison.

  193. Anonymous[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    It's absolutely true: accepting European migrants in the mid-to-late 19th century was an objectively poor decision with terrible and long term consequences.

    Well said, Corvinus. You bring up excellent points and resources for us to reference.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Anonymous

    Right, it was good for the ‘ethnic’ immigrants but bad for the WASPs (barring a few millionaires). Similarly, today’s Afro/Asian/Latino immigration is good for the immigrants but bad for whites (with the same exceptions.)

  194. @Triteleia Laxa
    The original post is a neat observation.

    On the other hand, I wonder who most sees reality, and who confuses it for their own reflection?

    The "rational" supposedly masculine "debater?"

    Or the feelings sharing "conversationalist"?

    Were you to have a magic crystal ball into which you only need look to see the future, you would also need to recognise every part of your own reflection in order to differentiate it and pick out that future clearly. Scrying the present is just as hard.

    If most of the comments are written by people who are certain that this is not a problem for them, then most of the comments are written by people suffocated by delusion.

    Switching this round, to the "feelings sharer", they too tend to blind hypocrisy. This is noted here by the fact that the supposed "conversation" is usually anything but, just as the supposed masculine "debate" whereby people are arguing objectively, is anything but. There's no intellectual humility and basically zero curiosity. Hence the descriptor "mansplaining." Objectivity requires endless curiosity and intellectual humility.

    Feelings are like a smile. You can share them, but they remain irredeemably yours. What the people who think they are merely sharing them are actually hoping to do is to make everyone else responsible for them, so they need not be responsible for themselves. In their supposedly oh so empathetic way, they can only accept feelings which match their own. This, like with the midwit "debater", is a sign of superficiality, and, ironically, is even a sign of a total empathy failure. They can't recognise their own contradicting feelings, as anyone will have about cany omplicated subject, so, in their fear of uncertainty, they need everyone else to validate them. In this way, they also lack curiosity and humility, but now about their own feelings and those of others. Were someone to touch my hair, I would be very curious as to why they felt they wanted to. This, time a million, were they to racially hate me, but notice that there's zero curiosity in this direction.

    Once you point this all out to people, you can usually see the cogs whir as they think "but this is how things in my life are." Either "all of the men are mansplaining narcissists who coldly manipulate and then rage" or "all of the women are borderline lunatics who can't think objectively before getting offended by me."

    But people create their own lives and their own dynamics. Society may have general trends that truly reflect some stereotypes, but these are not extreme. If your own experiences are very extreme then that is likely because you seek extremity out and incentivise it, probably because you need your own balance.

    "TL, you're just making generalised statements and what you're saying has no practical use for manipulating other people. It is only asking me to do some introspection."

    Yes and no! Be curious if you can tell your reflection from external reality, but also realise that if you are rational and you want to communicate, you need to meet people roughly half way. If those you disagree with see themselves as valuing the sharing of feelings, then learn to share yours and own them and take responsibility for them. Otherwise, they just perceive you as dishonestly hiding them behind selectively biased "facts" and motivated "analysis." Of course everyone knows this, because people only hide their feelings in a debate because a deep part of them is fearful that the other person will judge them and devalue them for potentially motivated reasoning, but whose judgement, if not actually their own correct one, is that person truly afraid of?

    Replies: @Mehen

    Welcome back, luv.

    Did Ron heed my call?

    https://www.unz.com/runz/is-the-tide-finally-turning-on-covid-as-an-american-biowarfare-attack/?showcomments#comment-4946014

    …or is it just coincidence?

    In any case — what’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement