The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Wittgenstein vs. Humpty-Dumpty on Whether You Ought to be Able to Force Other People to Play Along with Your Gender Identity Fantasy
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

From Quillette:

The Incoherence of Gender Ideology

written by Michael Robillard

Published on August 4, 2021

… In his now famous “private language argument,” Wittgenstein entertained the conceptual possibility of a completely private language. Since definitions within any language, like rules within a game, require fixity in order for the game to hang together at all, and since a wholly private language would have no such checks and balances to keep definitions fixed and stable (the private language user could just amend definitions in perpetuity with no restrictions), Wittgenstein concluded that a wholly private language was conceptually impossible and that for terms and definitions to have any fixed meaning at all required checks and balances provided by other language users. …

Contra arguments espoused by gender ideology advocates, I argue that, by the starting premises of their own argumentation, the notions of both “gender” and “transgender” are either incoherent or vacuous and therefore cannot be the conceptual grounds by which persons derive actual positive or negative rights claims. On the contrary, such false “rights” claims actually amount to severe rights violations of the vast majority of everyday language-users and citizens and cause irreparable damage to the set of shared social and linguistic practices necessary for coordinating the basic public goods of a free, flourishing, and truth-preserving society.

The social and political consequence of allowing such false rights claims to swell unopposed to the level of positive rights claims, eventually codifying into actual state-compelled law (as is already the case with Canada’s Bill C-16 and soon to be with America’s Equality Act) will be nothing less than the legal sanctioning of a new priest class of magical people who speak all of reality into existence, and then the rest of society who must simply obey.

On the other hand, from Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

 
Hide 152 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Don’t indulge the idiots.

    When someone corrects you about use of their preferred pronouns, just tell them to shut up.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Yawrate
    @Abolish_public_education

    My preferred pronouns are “sir” and “yes sir”.

    , @Mr. Blank
    @Abolish_public_education

    If only it were that simple. I nearly lost my job for refusing to defer to another person's preferred pronouns. I probably would have lost it if I hadn't been able to play the "tragically ill wife" card. It felt dirty to resort to that, but then again, I was about to lose my job over pronouns.

    Replies: @JackOH, @Hangnail Hans, @tyrone, @Stan d Mute

    , @Desiderius
    @Abolish_public_education

    What's idiotic about them?

    Do you think that Genghis Khan was an idiot? Insane?

    This is straightforward conquest. Do you see anyone stopping them?

    , @Anon
    @Abolish_public_education

    Why are the preferred pronouns in the third person? Seems that the most important pronoun is second person - you. How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    Replies: @Herp McDerp, @International Jew, @Anon, @VivaLaMigra

    , @notbe
    @Abolish_public_education

    ...except when you do that, the powers that be will fire you from your job

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    , @El Dato
    @Abolish_public_education

    But silence is violence!

    , @Forbes
    @Abolish_public_education

    Isn't the answer to just use their name--and skip the pronoun nonsense.

  2. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    Emmett Till

    • Replies: @Richard B
    @James Speaks


    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
     
    Yep.

    Humpty Dumpty wins every time. And then he falls off the wall.

    Making his win a Pyrrhic Victory.

  3. The arguments in the article are excellent, but taking away an alcoholic’s booze doesn’t help, you have to, at least, give them a suitable alternative that meets their needs just as well.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    No, you need to take away his booze. It's his responsibility to function without it, something the vast majority do.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  4. There are certain things you may choose to do out of courtesy.

    When Egbert Souse, played by W.C. Fields, claims his name is pronounced SUE-say — “accent grave over the ‘e’ ” (he meant, of course, accent aigu) — you may go along with it just to be polite.

    When my little sister, at age 5 or 6, insisted she wanted to be a cowboy and not a cowgirl when she grew up, I shouldn’t have argued with her (and today regret that I did). I probably should have humored her.

    When a lunatic demands that you call him “Dr.” or “Your royal highness” or “Napoleon,” you may want to humor him as well.

    But there’s no reason why we should believe any of it, nor keep up the pretense when that person isn’t around.

    The same goes for people who claim to be the sex they are not.

    • Replies: @Wade Hampton
    @Simon


    When a lunatic demands that you call him “Dr.” or “Your royal highness” or “Napoleon,” you may want to humor him as well....The same goes for people who claim to be the sex they are not.
     
    And for the same reason. The gender dysphoric are mentally ill, just as is the delusional lunatic.
    , @Anonymous
    @Simon

    This is a reasonable argument, and I'm sure many decent and intelligent people would find it convincing.
    But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives his or her lunacy as aligned with the moral flow of history. And yet what the confused person perceives as freedom and moral progress is growing totalitarianism and evil.
    I think what is required in our times is immediate rebuke.
    You are being asked to lie.
    And you are being asked to lie in a way that directly and indirectly fosters deep moral evil.
    Anyone concerned about how others perceive their gender is salvageable.
    They don't fully believe absolute nonsense.
    You are harming them by accomodating them.
    But of course, we have to choose our battles, and the "bigger" moral problem is that you are harming others.
    You are harming clueless young men and women who might feel the attraction of the nonsense as a way of validating their existence in a world that increasingly hides meaning from most.
    And you are harming more sane men and women who nonetheless might not fully internally perceive manhood or womanhood as intrinsic to who they are, and so might waver in trying to become the best man or woman possible.

    DO NOT TELL ME TO LIE.
    You might lose your job or "friends", but you will become stronger.

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra, @njguy73

    , @Cortes
    @Simon

    The Souse/SUE-say scenario underpinned the success of the BBC sitcom

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances

    featuring Hyacinth Bucket (“Bouquet”) which was popular in the USA, according to the Wikipedia article.

    In his chapter dedicated to surnames, Basil Cottle’s “Names” includes the hilarious example of an East Anglian occupational surname - Hogsflesh (pork butcher) - which a 1970s bearer insisted was pronounced “Hooflay”.

    Pretensions about names are essentially harmless as long as they are the result of individual snobbery, social insecurities or mental problems and can safely be humoured. Where an organised claque is attempting to enforce acceptance of them, they have to be resisted.

  5. Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    You are either fools or cowards.

    • Agree: schnellandine
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon


    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”
     

    This sort of incremental idiocy is exactly how they do it. "Transgender" isn't merely the modern "2+2=5", it's O'Brien in Room 101 making you say, hell, making you believe "2+2=5".

    (Note that Orwell wasn't predicting the future but mocking the recent past. It was already here.)


    You are either fools or cowards.

     

    Being called a coward by "Anon" is like being called ugly by Jimmy Carter.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    I agree with Reg here. This cultural revoulution is part of the conquering and, in fact, a pretty good start. If people won't fight back the purposeful stupidity on these issues, they sure as hell ain't gonna fight when the Communist Feral government starts telling them to stay inside for a month as a personal LOCKDOWN for some trangression or another.

    America is full of pussies who are now masking up for Season 3 of the Flu Manchu PanicFest as I write. I had a run in at a gas station with a fat broad who wanted to take my temperature. I really was going to let her, but she took issue with a few remarks that included the words "hysterical", "retarded", and "you ain't gonna die today, lady." That gas station didn't make a sale of 4 gallons, a cherry Coke, and a bag of Starburst gummies, let me tell you right now. I've been banned from 76.

    Replies: @El Dato, @tyrone, @Anonymous

    , @El Dato
    @Anon

    Why not look for love in unexpected places instead?

    It beggars belief that a trans YouTube star, arrested for allegedly raping his own mother, will be jailed with women inmates


    Police in Virginia have classified Chris Chan, 39, as female because he says he’s a trans woman, but he is biologically male and has allegedly admitted to raping his mother, 79, who suffers from dementia. We live in a sick world.
     
    Silence is Violence.
    Sickness is Progress.
    Rolling immigro-trucks are pension security.
    Bronze Age Pervert has been banned from Twitter.
    PayPal gives your purchasing history to the ADL.
    Embrace the dieversity!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anon

    , @Gordo
    @Anon


    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    You are either fools or cowards.

     

    Big game / little game.

    You are allowed to play the little game but the big game is out of bounds.
  6. @Abolish_public_education
    Don’t indulge the idiots.

    When someone corrects you about use of their preferred pronouns, just tell them to shut up.

    Replies: @Yawrate, @Mr. Blank, @Desiderius, @Anon, @notbe, @El Dato, @Forbes

    My preferred pronouns are “sir” and “yes sir”.

  7. • Replies: @Right_On
    @anon

    Emperor Norton, a saint honored by Discordianism (a precursor to chaos magick) and praised in its religious text Principia Discordia, by Malaclypse the Younger.

    Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!

    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @anon

    Some time you should read the story "The Repairer of Reputations" by Robert W. Chambers. These days I feel like I'm actually living in "The King in Yellow." You spend an hour on Twitter, it feels like you've read the forbidden Act Two which drives the reader insane.

  8. This is much more important than whether you ought to be able to force unwanted medical interventions on people.

  9. @Simon
    There are certain things you may choose to do out of courtesy.

    When Egbert Souse, played by W.C. Fields, claims his name is pronounced SUE-say -- "accent grave over the 'e' " (he meant, of course, accent aigu) -- you may go along with it just to be polite.

    When my little sister, at age 5 or 6, insisted she wanted to be a cowboy and not a cowgirl when she grew up, I shouldn't have argued with her (and today regret that I did). I probably should have humored her.

    When a lunatic demands that you call him "Dr." or "Your royal highness" or "Napoleon," you may want to humor him as well.

    But there's no reason why we should believe any of it, nor keep up the pretense when that person isn't around.

    The same goes for people who claim to be the sex they are not.

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @Anonymous, @Cortes

    When a lunatic demands that you call him “Dr.” or “Your royal highness” or “Napoleon,” you may want to humor him as well….The same goes for people who claim to be the sex they are not.

    And for the same reason. The gender dysphoric are mentally ill, just as is the delusional lunatic.

  10. About a dozen years ago I attended an academic debate that had been trumpeted in the campus newspaper. I was horrified. The participants did not actually know the nature of some of the words they were using. The weak provost wouldn’t stop this travesty of a debate. Nor would the prexy.

    It’s the 21st century and we’re still debating the rectification of names. Or, maybe not. Maybe it really is all about power, money, and whatever in hell someone can get away with. Exceptions, I suppose, for hard science, engineering, the manual trades, farming. When I’m feeling particularly glum, I regard the student barbers where I often get my hair cut as contributing more to the world than the 300+ professors at my local Podunk Tech.

    Only had time for the quickest scan. I needed to vent.

    • Replies: @Bill H.
    @JackOH

    In a discussion, my 45-yr-old liberal niece said that the dictionary meaning of "radical" (which I had cited) was not what she meant by her use of the word. I asked her what she intended the word to mean and she could not say, only that it was not what the dictionary said it was.

    Replies: @Badger Down

  11. The author seriously understates the force of Wittgenstein’s argument.

    The point is not merely that a private language, by lacking public checks to maintain ‘fixity’ would be untenable because the user of a private language could always shift meanings on a whim–hence there couldn’t be a language, in the sense that a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon.

    The deeper point, made explicitly by Wittgenstein, is that the user himself could never be sure that he had indeed shifted meanings or hadn’t. That’s because the only check for the user for any term (the way he keeps track) is memory; but what would he use to check his memory? Without a public check of the memory he’s using to check his ever shifting meanings, he’d never know if what’s he’s using the word ‘N’–Wittgenstein’s example, for refers to the same thing, a different thing, or frankly anything stable enough to be named at all.

    It’s quite a skeptical tour de force.

    • Agree: notbe, Anon62
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Deckin

    Thanks.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Deckin


    The point is not merely that a private language, by lacking public checks to maintain ‘fixity’ would be untenable because the user of a private language could always shift meanings on a whim–hence there couldn’t be a language, in the sense that a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon.

     

    Language preservationists like to point out that a tongue doesn't die with its last speaker, but with its second-to-last.
    , @Right_On
    @Deckin

    The Austrian logician can be hard work.

    You say that "a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon". But suppose Humpty-Dumpty were to define language as "a written or spoken record of meaning", or some-such; which could be utilized in a private diary. Why can't 'language' mean just what he chooses it to mean?

    In his Ethics, Spinoza stipulates the precise meanings of the terms he will be using. Suppose he'd never wanted anyone else to read his book and it had been written just to exercise Spinoza's intellectual talents. I can't see why that would invalidate his procedure.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Dieter Kief

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Deckin

    I'd beg to differ a bit. Because what Wittgenstein here exemplifies is mostly right, but not quite right. Mostly right, in that language as a social tool, is open to criticism and correction by anybody (its strength and mode of progress/development - and at the same time its inherent weakness).

    As Right-On points out below, Wittgenstein is wrong in claiming that the use of a private language would necessarily lead to loss of memory or some such mistakes.

    But we can leave this aspect here aside because Michael Robillard in Quillette clearly tackles no private use of language, but a public one. Robillard's argument stands. It is a rather important purpose of language to serve public means and this purpose is in dire straits, as soon as people treat it as if it would be an ultimately or - essentially - private thing to claim things to be true in public. The point here is what should be acknowledged as truth. And the answer is: With regard to biology and the like: The truth is what can be publicly defended as true via sound (solid/scientific) arguments. Biology is no subjective matter at all and you should not try to circumvent this well-estalbished fact by insisting on your subjective perspective - unless you are a - three-year-old kid, let's say.

    PS

    Seen from this perspective it is reasonable to oppose everybody who wants to force others to acknowledge their private truth in essentially non-subjective contexts. That is the systematically most important point here.

    It is ok to say, the paintings of my wife express the highest truths since this does not collide with any widely accepted standards about truth.

    It is not ok if person x expects from others that they accept whatever sex person x declares to have because there are publicly accepted objective criteria that define what that word sex means.

    , @Papinian
    @Deckin

    The memory isn't as bad as all that. Let's say I now want to call a handle a "befret" instead. Not hard to do! And provided I don't pile new words onto myself too quickly, I don't see any problem maintaining an increasing numbers of these words, indefinitely. The memory isn't super great, but it's not totally impotent, either!

  12. @Abolish_public_education
    Don’t indulge the idiots.

    When someone corrects you about use of their preferred pronouns, just tell them to shut up.

    Replies: @Yawrate, @Mr. Blank, @Desiderius, @Anon, @notbe, @El Dato, @Forbes

    If only it were that simple. I nearly lost my job for refusing to defer to another person’s preferred pronouns. I probably would have lost it if I hadn’t been able to play the “tragically ill wife” card. It felt dirty to resort to that, but then again, I was about to lose my job over pronouns.

    • Thanks: JackOH, sayless
    • Replies: @JackOH
    @Mr. Blank

    Mr. Blank, I appreciate all the comments on UR, but some folks seem to believe we contrarians here have more power and influence than we actually do. Many of us here are simply not in a position to meaningfully push back against the latest insult to our work skills, our sense of order, or--Chrissake--our personal dignity.

    I gather the shoe has been on the other foot for some time. Instead of racism, homophobia, misogyny and what-not, we ought to be talking calmly about anti-White racism, heterophobia, misandry. Abetted, of course, by law, bovine popular opinion, and Big Business, the last of which sees advantage in dissolving traditionalist-conservative patterns of thought and behavior.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Hangnail Hans
    @Mr. Blank

    What a relief it is that I don't have to deal with this nonsense first-hand. Because I'd surely refer to them as "it" and probably lose my job. If by chance they had "Hair" and asked me what the hell I just said, I'd say "It. Cousin Itt."

    And the only person I'd apologize to for that would be Sean Connery.

    , @tyrone
    @Mr. Blank

    Feel dirty?....try feeling like you are behind enemy lines ,a little "taqiya" may be in order.....good luck to you and the Mrs.

    , @Stan d Mute
    @Mr. Blank

    One would hope that since the episode you have decreased your work output and quality to that of the average affirmative action HR or DIE worker while spending every available moment looking for the exit.

    If not, we can only conclude that you like it.

    The time is now about 30 years overdue for the general strike of all white men who actually produce stuff (power, water, sanitation, food, durable goods, etc). All of the parasitic FIRE class can of course keep working since they contribute little to nothing of value anyway.

    Replies: @JackOH

  13. It’s worth noting that Humpty Dumpty was cracked too.

  14. …nothing less than the legal sanctioning of a new priest class of magical people who speak all of reality into existence, and then the rest of society who must simply obey.

    That, of course, is the whole point of the exercise, whether the people insisting on it are consciously aware of it or not. It’s a way for these people to indulge their will to power, backed up with the full might of the law.

    • Agree: notbe, Forbes
    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @Mr. Blank

    That's a really good point. Imagine being that mentally ill and confused. You're not sure what's wrong with you, you really want to be a boy or a girl but God made you what you physically are. Who do you rail against?

    Now these broken people finally have a feeling of some power within. "I can declare my gender and so be it! Fiat girl! or Fiat boy!"

    Ye shall be as gods, I guess. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that you are, indeed, the opposite sex.

  15. Contra arguments espoused by gender ideology advocates, I argue that, by the starting premises of their own argumentation, the notions of both “gender” and “transgender” are either incoherent or vacuous and therefore cannot be the conceptual grounds by which persons derive actual positive or negative rights claims. On the contrary, such false “rights” claims actually amount to severe rights violations of the vast majority of everyday language-users and citizens and cause irreparable damage to the set of shared social and linguistic practices necessary for coordinating the basic public goods of a free, flourishing, and truth-preserving society.

    True, but a little complicated for our dumbed-down era to follow.

    Or you could just decide that compelled speech is not free speech, as an appellate court in California did recently.

    https://spectator.org/preferred-pronouns-unconstitutional/

    As LBJ is alleged to have said that if he lost Walter Conkrite he lost America, so if the trans dictators have lost California courts, they’ve lost every more sane part of the country as well (i.e. all of it).

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Almost Missouri

    What hath America or the courts sited here but not ours in any meaningful sense to do with the GAE? Americans qua americans aren't calling the shots here on any of this.


    On the contrary, such false “rights” claims actually amount to severe rights violations of the vast majority of everyday language-users and citizens and cause irreparable damage to the set of shared social and linguistic practices necessary for coordinating the basic public goods of a free, flourishing, and truth-preserving society.
     
    Does it make sense to say anything other than that such damage is the point given who is promoting such claims and who benefits from the damage?
  16. I suppose it’s yet another thing entirely when the obscurantist private language is used and promulgated by the society’s ruling class rather than a flight of imagination like Elvish or Klingon . . .

  17. @Almost Missouri

    Contra arguments espoused by gender ideology advocates, I argue that, by the starting premises of their own argumentation, the notions of both “gender” and “transgender” are either incoherent or vacuous and therefore cannot be the conceptual grounds by which persons derive actual positive or negative rights claims. On the contrary, such false “rights” claims actually amount to severe rights violations of the vast majority of everyday language-users and citizens and cause irreparable damage to the set of shared social and linguistic practices necessary for coordinating the basic public goods of a free, flourishing, and truth-preserving society.
     
    True, but a little complicated for our dumbed-down era to follow.

    Or you could just decide that compelled speech is not free speech, as an appellate court in California did recently.

    https://spectator.org/preferred-pronouns-unconstitutional/

    As LBJ is alleged to have said that if he lost Walter Conkrite he lost America, so if the trans dictators have lost California courts, they've lost every more sane part of the country as well (i.e. all of it).

    Replies: @Desiderius

    What hath America or the courts sited here but not ours in any meaningful sense to do with the GAE? Americans qua americans aren’t calling the shots here on any of this.

    On the contrary, such false “rights” claims actually amount to severe rights violations of the vast majority of everyday language-users and citizens and cause irreparable damage to the set of shared social and linguistic practices necessary for coordinating the basic public goods of a free, flourishing, and truth-preserving society.

    Does it make sense to say anything other than that such damage is the point given who is promoting such claims and who benefits from the damage?

  18. @Abolish_public_education
    Don’t indulge the idiots.

    When someone corrects you about use of their preferred pronouns, just tell them to shut up.

    Replies: @Yawrate, @Mr. Blank, @Desiderius, @Anon, @notbe, @El Dato, @Forbes

    What’s idiotic about them?

    Do you think that Genghis Khan was an idiot? Insane?

    This is straightforward conquest. Do you see anyone stopping them?

  19. @Abolish_public_education
    Don’t indulge the idiots.

    When someone corrects you about use of their preferred pronouns, just tell them to shut up.

    Replies: @Yawrate, @Mr. Blank, @Desiderius, @Anon, @notbe, @El Dato, @Forbes

    Why are the preferred pronouns in the third person? Seems that the most important pronoun is second person – you. How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    • Replies: @Herp McDerp
    @Anon

    How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    This!

    Perhaps I'm just a coward, but when talking and writing about third parties I don't use pronouns if there's any degree of ambiguity or or uncertainty, or if I disagree with that person* about gender or sexual identity. There are alternatives, including the person's name, job title, or substitutions like "that idiot."

    The Woke are litigious, and it gives them a sense of power to ruin other people's lives.

    -----------------------------
    *There, for example.

    Replies: @Dr. DoomNGloom

    , @International Jew
    @Anon

    Taking umbrage on behalf of third persons is what it's all about. Same as when one white person corrects another white person over saying Eskimo or Hottentot.

    As for you, of course that's trouble-free in English since there's only one term for it. Certain other languages offer more opportunities for the language police. Hebrew does have masculine and feminine forms for you. In Russian, past tense verbs are gendered and so are all adjectives. In Hebrew (and Arabic actually), practically everything is gendered — adjectives, verbs in first second and third person in all tenses, adjectives, and of course the (two) words for you. Fortunately, wokeness hasn't gained much traction in either Russia or Israel.

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    , @Anon
    @Anon

    I saw a Twitter account today from a female anthro Ph.D. with preferred pronouns of "she/they." Huh? Which is it? Either? You don't care which?

    How do you get out of high school and through a Ph.D. program without learning English grammar?

    Possible preferred pronouns are:

    -- she/her or she/her/herself

    -- they/them or they/them/their/theirs/themself

    The idea is you choose a gender, he, she, or they, and then you decline out as much as you want from there; usually a single extra declension is enough to show the pattern. I think just saying he, she, or they is enough. In the beginning of this madness the idea was that people would choose made-up pronouns, but even the woke decided that was going too far. In that case you'd need the whole declension: xhe/xhem/xher/xhers/xhemsylf.

    Replies: @Badger Down, @Harry Baldwin, @Chrisnonymous

    , @VivaLaMigra
    @Anon

    Yes, I see. The pronouns "he/him/his" have ALWAYS been the accepted, and indeed preferrred, ones when the speaker is referring to an individual unknown, or hypothetical. The use of "they" and its objective and possessive forms is non grammatical when used to refer to just ONE person. In this context, "he" is not sexist, anymore than "they" is sexist when used for a group of people. In fact, the word "they" is the relative pronoun used for multiple OBJECTS, not just people; ie. it's the plural of "it" as well as "he" or "she." Use of an accepted SINGULAR pronoun aids clear speaking and comprehension. English uses the "masculine" form of the singular third person pronoun in this context, and it's not unique in that usage. It's illustrative that English speakers are now attempting to change OTHER languages, which is not their place or their right. The most obvious example is the attempted forcing of the made-up Spanish word "Latinx" in place of "Latino" for a mixed-gender group of "Hispanic" [itself a made-up term] people. Spanish speakers are actually outraged over this, and they're right to be. They consider their native language part of their culture. We English [ok, AMERICAN English] speakers should do the same, and defend our grammatical rules.

  20. @anon
    https://unbelievable-facts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Emperor-Norton-I-7.jpg

    Replies: @Right_On, @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Emperor Norton, a saint honored by Discordianism (a precursor to chaos magick) and praised in its religious text Principia Discordia, by Malaclypse the Younger.

    Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!

  21. @Deckin
    The author seriously understates the force of Wittgenstein's argument.

    The point is not merely that a private language, by lacking public checks to maintain 'fixity' would be untenable because the user of a private language could always shift meanings on a whim--hence there couldn't be a language, in the sense that a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon.

    The deeper point, made explicitly by Wittgenstein, is that the user himself could never be sure that he had indeed shifted meanings or hadn't. That's because the only check for the user for any term (the way he keeps track) is memory; but what would he use to check his memory? Without a public check of the memory he's using to check his ever shifting meanings, he'd never know if what's he's using the word 'N'--Wittgenstein's example, for refers to the same thing, a different thing, or frankly anything stable enough to be named at all.

    It's quite a skeptical tour de force.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar, @Right_On, @Dieter Kief, @Papinian

    Thanks.

  22. @Anon
    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    You are either fools or cowards.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @El Dato, @Gordo

    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    This sort of incremental idiocy is exactly how they do it. “Transgender” isn’t merely the modern “2+2=5”, it’s O’Brien in Room 101 making you say, hell, making you believe “2+2=5”.

    (Note that Orwell wasn’t predicting the future but mocking the recent past. It was already here.)

    You are either fools or cowards.

    Being called a coward by “Anon” is like being called ugly by Jimmy Carter.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Reg Cæsar



    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”
     
    This sort of incremental idiocy is exactly how they do it.
     
    Look! A squirrel!

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  23. @Deckin
    The author seriously understates the force of Wittgenstein's argument.

    The point is not merely that a private language, by lacking public checks to maintain 'fixity' would be untenable because the user of a private language could always shift meanings on a whim--hence there couldn't be a language, in the sense that a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon.

    The deeper point, made explicitly by Wittgenstein, is that the user himself could never be sure that he had indeed shifted meanings or hadn't. That's because the only check for the user for any term (the way he keeps track) is memory; but what would he use to check his memory? Without a public check of the memory he's using to check his ever shifting meanings, he'd never know if what's he's using the word 'N'--Wittgenstein's example, for refers to the same thing, a different thing, or frankly anything stable enough to be named at all.

    It's quite a skeptical tour de force.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar, @Right_On, @Dieter Kief, @Papinian

    The point is not merely that a private language, by lacking public checks to maintain ‘fixity’ would be untenable because the user of a private language could always shift meanings on a whim–hence there couldn’t be a language, in the sense that a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon.

    Language preservationists like to point out that a tongue doesn’t die with its last speaker, but with its second-to-last.

    • Agree: Gordo
  24. @Anon
    @Abolish_public_education

    Why are the preferred pronouns in the third person? Seems that the most important pronoun is second person - you. How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    Replies: @Herp McDerp, @International Jew, @Anon, @VivaLaMigra

    How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    This!

    Perhaps I’m just a coward, but when talking and writing about third parties I don’t use pronouns if there’s any degree of ambiguity or or uncertainty, or if I disagree with that person* about gender or sexual identity. There are alternatives, including the person’s name, job title, or substitutions like “that idiot.”

    The Woke are litigious, and it gives them a sense of power to ruin other people’s lives.

    —————————–
    *There, for example.

    • Replies: @Dr. DoomNGloom
    @Herp McDerp


    Perhaps I’m just a coward, but when talking and writing about third parties I don’t use pronouns if there’s any degree of ambiguity or or uncertainty, or if I disagree with that person* about gender or sexual identity.
     
    No, this is the only practical solution. It is not my job to recall the inner thoughts and identify of every person on this planet. I can only reasonably expect to known perhaps a few dozen people at a significantly personal level, and perhaps a couple hundred by name.

    Pronouns encode information that should be obvious without detailed knowledge, for example who is being referred to, singular vs. plural and gender. If one of these, for example gender is not obvious, then a pronoun is inappropriate because it will not serve it's purpose.

    The deeper question is regulation of language by authoritarian design rather than by organic evolutionary emergence. Authoritarian design undercuts the natural feedback mechanisms that determine if a language change survives the test of fitness for purpose. Since authoritarian constructs cannot evolve, they can be killed by environmental changes.

    IMO, a passive resistance will be the most effective resistance to the authority. We are already seeing the asinine xhe dissapear.

  25. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon


    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”
     

    This sort of incremental idiocy is exactly how they do it. "Transgender" isn't merely the modern "2+2=5", it's O'Brien in Room 101 making you say, hell, making you believe "2+2=5".

    (Note that Orwell wasn't predicting the future but mocking the recent past. It was already here.)


    You are either fools or cowards.

     

    Being called a coward by "Anon" is like being called ugly by Jimmy Carter.

    Replies: @Anon

    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    This sort of incremental idiocy is exactly how they do it.

    Look! A squirrel!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon

    You again.

    It doesn't matter what they force us to do; the point is that they force us at all. The "transgender" business is not a diversion, it's the kid glove worn by the mailed fist. That's why
    303 Creative v. Elenis was taken up by a civil liberties group. A real one.

    I don't expect you to grasp this point, but others here will with no problem.

  26. @Mr. Blank
    @Abolish_public_education

    If only it were that simple. I nearly lost my job for refusing to defer to another person's preferred pronouns. I probably would have lost it if I hadn't been able to play the "tragically ill wife" card. It felt dirty to resort to that, but then again, I was about to lose my job over pronouns.

    Replies: @JackOH, @Hangnail Hans, @tyrone, @Stan d Mute

    Mr. Blank, I appreciate all the comments on UR, but some folks seem to believe we contrarians here have more power and influence than we actually do. Many of us here are simply not in a position to meaningfully push back against the latest insult to our work skills, our sense of order, or–Chrissake–our personal dignity.

    I gather the shoe has been on the other foot for some time. Instead of racism, homophobia, misogyny and what-not, we ought to be talking calmly about anti-White racism, heterophobia, misandry. Abetted, of course, by law, bovine popular opinion, and Big Business, the last of which sees advantage in dissolving traditionalist-conservative patterns of thought and behavior.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @JackOH

    'I gather the shoe has been on the other foot for some time. Instead of racism, homophobia, misogyny and what-not, we ought to be talking calmly about anti-White racism, heterophobia, misandry. Abetted, of course, by law, bovine popular opinion, and Big Business, the last of which sees advantage in dissolving traditionalist-conservative patterns of thought and behavior.'

    I think this is still missing the point.

    You're still seeking -- at least implicitly -- some sort of equitable solution.

    Nah, That's not how it works. They've started a war. You can lose, or you can win.

    Replies: @JackOH

  27. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

  28. Wittgenstein was Jewish, but raised as a Catholic, in a palatial home in Vienna. Klimpt painted his sister and Brahms was a regular guest who played on one of the nine or ten grand pianos in the home. Guess who was his schoolmate, the same age but in a different grade at the Linz Realschule? None other than little Hitler himself, the most evil little kid ever ever. I can’t figure out, though, how Hitler could have been going to school with the offspring of the second richest kid in Europe, after the Rothschilds. Was it a free school? Was Hitler richer than we knew? A mystery. It has been proposed that the hated Jewish schoolmate in Mein Kampf was none other than Wittgenstein. In addition, Wittgenstein might well have been the “fifth man” in the Kim Philby spy ring at Cambridge. He almost certainly was a Soviet spy for years.

    • Disagree: Gordo
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Red Pill Angel

    Hayek was Wittgenstein's nephew, or something like that.

    , @Anon
    @Red Pill Angel


    Wittgenstein was Jewish, but raised as a Catholic, in a palatial home in Vienna.
     
    Wittgenstein’s mother was Gentile and his maternal grandmother was Gentile. Wittgenstein was not Jewish.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Red Pill Angel

    , @El Dato
    @Red Pill Angel

    That sounds like one could massage it into a plot for a Robert Harris potboiler.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein


    Born in Vienna into one of Europe's richest families, he inherited a fortune from his father in 1913. He initially made some donations to artists and writers, and then, in a period of severe personal depression after World War I, he gave away his entire fortune to his brothers and sisters.[20][21] Three of his four older brothers died by separate acts of suicide. Wittgenstein left academia several times—serving as an officer on the front line during World War I, where he was decorated a number of times for his courage; teaching in schools in remote Austrian villages, where he encountered controversy for use of violence, to girls and to a boy (the Haidbauer incident), during mathematics classes;

     

    I can sympathize.

    Also an early anti-vaxxer.


    and working during World War II as a hospital porter in London, notably telling patients not to take the drugs they were prescribed, and also later as a hospital laboratory technician at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle upon Tyne.

     

    Apparently part-jewish (unlike famous contemporary logicians like Gentzen, just saying)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#Jewish_background_and_Hitler

    There is much debate about the extent to which Wittgenstein and his siblings, who were of 3/4 Jewish descent, saw themselves as Jews.
     

    and

    In his own writings Wittgenstein frequently referred to himself as Jewish, at times as part of an apparent self-flagellation. For example, while berating himself for being a "reproductive" as opposed to "productive" thinker, he attributed this to his own Jewish sense of identity, writing:

    The saint is the only Jewish genius. Even the greatest Jewish thinker is no more than talented. (Myself for instance).
     

    Being in the same class as young Hitler ruins you!

    For an infodump of preternatural proportions, go to:

    - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
    - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-atomism/
    - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/

    which mentions neither Hitler nor Jews.

    Anyway, fascinating.

    swole_doge.jpg

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  29. … Wittgenstein concluded that a wholly private language was conceptually impossible and that for terms and definitions to have any fixed meaning at all required checks and balances provided by other language users.

    A refutation of Wittgenstein’s claim is provided by Ishi, the California Indian who was the last member of his people. He was also the last speaker — and in his lifetime, the only speaker — of the Yana language.

    • Replies: @notbe
    @Herp McDerp

    its a bit different-ishi was speaking a language that had internal rules that ishi had to follow when speaking it ishi wasnt making up his own rules when speaking yana that ishi was the only speaker of that language doesnt matter, other speakers had to follow the same rules...unfortunately they died out, one after the other leaving only ishi

    Replies: @Herp McDerp

  30. “If you really, really need to be the center of attention, you’ll have to do it somewhere else. I don’t have time to pretend that you’re important or interesting.”

    • Thanks: Stan d Mute
  31. Wittgenstein the homosexual was in the same high school graduating class as Adolf Hitler…you can google the photo…..

    • Agree: Red Pill Angel
  32. @Anon
    @Abolish_public_education

    Why are the preferred pronouns in the third person? Seems that the most important pronoun is second person - you. How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    Replies: @Herp McDerp, @International Jew, @Anon, @VivaLaMigra

    Taking umbrage on behalf of third persons is what it’s all about. Same as when one white person corrects another white person over saying Eskimo or Hottentot.

    As for you, of course that’s trouble-free in English since there’s only one term for it. Certain other languages offer more opportunities for the language police. Hebrew does have masculine and feminine forms for you. In Russian, past tense verbs are gendered and so are all adjectives. In Hebrew (and Arabic actually), practically everything is gendered — adjectives, verbs in first second and third person in all tenses, adjectives, and of course the (two) words for you. Fortunately, wokeness hasn’t gained much traction in either Russia or Israel.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @International Jew

    Is this the problem with English? No gender to our grammar? Where the heck did that come from anyway? Why does language need gender?

    That was four questions. I'd appreciate four succinct answers, thank you. No more, no less.

  33. @Anon
    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    You are either fools or cowards.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @El Dato, @Gordo

    I agree with Reg here. This cultural revoulution is part of the conquering and, in fact, a pretty good start. If people won’t fight back the purposeful stupidity on these issues, they sure as hell ain’t gonna fight when the Communist Feral government starts telling them to stay inside for a month as a personal LOCKDOWN for some trangression or another.

    America is full of pussies who are now masking up for Season 3 of the Flu Manchu PanicFest as I write. I had a run in at a gas station with a fat broad who wanted to take my temperature. I really was going to let her, but she took issue with a few remarks that included the words “hysterical”, “retarded”, and “you ain’t gonna die today, lady.” That gas station didn’t make a sale of 4 gallons, a cherry Coke, and a bag of Starburst gummies, let me tell you right now. I’ve been banned from 76.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You shouldn't eat ultra-processed "food".

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @tyrone
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It's always interesting to get a little slice of life........ cherry coke?.....starburst gummies?....they didn't have the extremely red hot dogs rotating in the broiler?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Anonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I had a run in at a gas station with a fat broad who wanted to take my temperature.
     
    Was this a corporate policy (i.e. there was a sign on the door telling people this is what they could expect) or her personal policy?

    I ask because the temperature-taking process simply screams "liability" to me (e.g. the newly-minted plaintiff insisting "I caught Covid from standing close to your tester/the customer being tested).

    Is this practice, in fact, a good idea and I am just not seeing it?

    I really was going to let her, but she took issue with a few remarks that included the words “hysterical”, “retarded”, and “you ain’t gonna die today, lady.”
     
    I would have simply turned tail and left without a word. Rightly or wrongly, this Covid business seems to have instilled in me the habit of measuring personal interactions largely in terms of, "How much energy will taking Action X cost me?" If the answer is, "a lot," well, there had better be a large cheque waiting for me at the end of it.

    Most people, I am convinced, are simply not worth the bother.

    This woman is not helping tired, dusty travelers feel welcome, to say the least, but I have to wonder how much of what she did was up to her, and how much may have been the result of a "do this or else" memo from her corporate masters.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  34. @Deckin
    The author seriously understates the force of Wittgenstein's argument.

    The point is not merely that a private language, by lacking public checks to maintain 'fixity' would be untenable because the user of a private language could always shift meanings on a whim--hence there couldn't be a language, in the sense that a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon.

    The deeper point, made explicitly by Wittgenstein, is that the user himself could never be sure that he had indeed shifted meanings or hadn't. That's because the only check for the user for any term (the way he keeps track) is memory; but what would he use to check his memory? Without a public check of the memory he's using to check his ever shifting meanings, he'd never know if what's he's using the word 'N'--Wittgenstein's example, for refers to the same thing, a different thing, or frankly anything stable enough to be named at all.

    It's quite a skeptical tour de force.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar, @Right_On, @Dieter Kief, @Papinian

    The Austrian logician can be hard work.

    You say that “a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon”. But suppose Humpty-Dumpty were to define language as “a written or spoken record of meaning”, or some-such; which could be utilized in a private diary. Why can’t ‘language’ mean just what he chooses it to mean?

    In his Ethics, Spinoza stipulates the precise meanings of the terms he will be using. Suppose he’d never wanted anyone else to read his book and it had been written just to exercise Spinoza’s intellectual talents. I can’t see why that would invalidate his procedure.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Right_On


    Suppose he’d never wanted anyone else to read his book and it had been written just to exercise Spinoza’s intellectual talents. I can’t see why that would invalidate his procedure.

     

    That sounds like the premise of a Borges story.

    And why not? A "language" is ultimately a set of certain allowed graphs between nodes representing concepts which agent A transfers to agent B in order to elicit (intended) changes in agent B. There is nothing that prohibits A and B being the same. In particular A may use the language as record-keeping device. The pre-requisite is that A and B have the same idea of "intended changes".
    , @Dieter Kief
    @Right_On

    Aww, he finds himself at times bound or bewitched even, by his own observations. Wittgenstein too then has to cross the swamp of the Ego-philosophy. - The way out being intersubjective philosophy (Jürgen Habermas).

    Replies: @Anon62

  35. When somebody starts the conversation by announcing “my pronouns are…”, reply by reminding them that pronouns are in the public domain so they can’t “have” one.

    • LOL: Forbes
  36. @Mr. Blank
    @Abolish_public_education

    If only it were that simple. I nearly lost my job for refusing to defer to another person's preferred pronouns. I probably would have lost it if I hadn't been able to play the "tragically ill wife" card. It felt dirty to resort to that, but then again, I was about to lose my job over pronouns.

    Replies: @JackOH, @Hangnail Hans, @tyrone, @Stan d Mute

    What a relief it is that I don’t have to deal with this nonsense first-hand. Because I’d surely refer to them as “it” and probably lose my job. If by chance they had “Hair” and asked me what the hell I just said, I’d say “It. Cousin Itt.”

    And the only person I’d apologize to for that would be Sean Connery.

  37. @Red Pill Angel
    Wittgenstein was Jewish, but raised as a Catholic, in a palatial home in Vienna. Klimpt painted his sister and Brahms was a regular guest who played on one of the nine or ten grand pianos in the home. Guess who was his schoolmate, the same age but in a different grade at the Linz Realschule? None other than little Hitler himself, the most evil little kid ever ever. I can't figure out, though, how Hitler could have been going to school with the offspring of the second richest kid in Europe, after the Rothschilds. Was it a free school? Was Hitler richer than we knew? A mystery. It has been proposed that the hated Jewish schoolmate in Mein Kampf was none other than Wittgenstein. In addition, Wittgenstein might well have been the "fifth man" in the Kim Philby spy ring at Cambridge. He almost certainly was a Soviet spy for years.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon, @El Dato

    Hayek was Wittgenstein’s nephew, or something like that.

    • Thanks: Red Pill Angel
  38. @Abolish_public_education
    Don’t indulge the idiots.

    When someone corrects you about use of their preferred pronouns, just tell them to shut up.

    Replies: @Yawrate, @Mr. Blank, @Desiderius, @Anon, @notbe, @El Dato, @Forbes

    …except when you do that, the powers that be will fire you from your job

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @notbe


    except when you do that, the powers that be will fire you from your job
     
    They can only fire you if they can afford to fire you. Remember that one you youngsters who aren’t reading. If firing you means immediate revenue losses or future losses that can’t be stemmed, it’s always the other guy who gets it.

    Make sure that you are a producer.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  39. @Red Pill Angel
    Wittgenstein was Jewish, but raised as a Catholic, in a palatial home in Vienna. Klimpt painted his sister and Brahms was a regular guest who played on one of the nine or ten grand pianos in the home. Guess who was his schoolmate, the same age but in a different grade at the Linz Realschule? None other than little Hitler himself, the most evil little kid ever ever. I can't figure out, though, how Hitler could have been going to school with the offspring of the second richest kid in Europe, after the Rothschilds. Was it a free school? Was Hitler richer than we knew? A mystery. It has been proposed that the hated Jewish schoolmate in Mein Kampf was none other than Wittgenstein. In addition, Wittgenstein might well have been the "fifth man" in the Kim Philby spy ring at Cambridge. He almost certainly was a Soviet spy for years.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon, @El Dato

    Wittgenstein was Jewish, but raised as a Catholic, in a palatial home in Vienna.

    Wittgenstein’s mother was Gentile and his maternal grandmother was Gentile. Wittgenstein was not Jewish.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    Tom Stoppard's latest play, "Leopoldstrasse," draws a lot from the history of the Wittgenstein family.

    , @Red Pill Angel
    @Anon

    You are correct. I should have been more precise.

  40. @Herp McDerp
    ... Wittgenstein concluded that a wholly private language was conceptually impossible and that for terms and definitions to have any fixed meaning at all required checks and balances provided by other language users.

    A refutation of Wittgenstein's claim is provided by Ishi, the California Indian who was the last member of his people. He was also the last speaker -- and in his lifetime, the only speaker -- of the Yana language.

    Replies: @notbe

    its a bit different-ishi was speaking a language that had internal rules that ishi had to follow when speaking it ishi wasnt making up his own rules when speaking yana that ishi was the only speaker of that language doesnt matter, other speakers had to follow the same rules…unfortunately they died out, one after the other leaving only ishi

    • Replies: @Herp McDerp
    @notbe

    ishi was speaking a language that had internal rules that ishi had to follow when speaking it
    ishi wasnt making up his own rules when speaking yana


    Wait. Wasn't a key element of Wittgenstein’s argument that someone with a private language could make up his own rules, which would invalidate it?

    Or maybe Ishi did make up his own rules, and Ishi's private Yana was different from "pure" Yana. Would that affect the answer to the question? And how would we ever know?

    Replies: @notbe

  41. @anon
    https://unbelievable-facts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Emperor-Norton-I-7.jpg

    Replies: @Right_On, @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Some time you should read the story “The Repairer of Reputations” by Robert W. Chambers. These days I feel like I’m actually living in “The King in Yellow.” You spend an hour on Twitter, it feels like you’ve read the forbidden Act Two which drives the reader insane.

    • LOL: El Dato
  42. @Anon
    @Red Pill Angel


    Wittgenstein was Jewish, but raised as a Catholic, in a palatial home in Vienna.
     
    Wittgenstein’s mother was Gentile and his maternal grandmother was Gentile. Wittgenstein was not Jewish.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Red Pill Angel

    Tom Stoppard’s latest play, “Leopoldstrasse,” draws a lot from the history of the Wittgenstein family.

  43. @JackOH
    About a dozen years ago I attended an academic debate that had been trumpeted in the campus newspaper. I was horrified. The participants did not actually know the nature of some of the words they were using. The weak provost wouldn't stop this travesty of a debate. Nor would the prexy.

    It's the 21st century and we're still debating the rectification of names. Or, maybe not. Maybe it really is all about power, money, and whatever in hell someone can get away with. Exceptions, I suppose, for hard science, engineering, the manual trades, farming. When I'm feeling particularly glum, I regard the student barbers where I often get my hair cut as contributing more to the world than the 300+ professors at my local Podunk Tech.

    Only had time for the quickest scan. I needed to vent.

    Replies: @Bill H.

    In a discussion, my 45-yr-old liberal niece said that the dictionary meaning of “radical” (which I had cited) was not what she meant by her use of the word. I asked her what she intended the word to mean and she could not say, only that it was not what the dictionary said it was.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
    @Bill H.

    And nothing to do with radishes, roots, uprooting, ausrottung, and eradicating. Voi-voi (a Finnish sigh of despair).

  44. If it didn’t have such catastrophic consequences, the whole thing would remind me of the old philosophy joke about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not. There’s a funny cartoon about two philosophers sitting in front of a hot dog, arguing about whether it’s a sandwich. Wittgenstein walks into the room, and one of them asks, “Wittgenstein, will you please hand me that sandwich?” To which Wittgenstein replies, “Certainly.”

    The assertion being that language is determined by usage, not by intrinsic meaning, or even necessarily by common convention.

    Personally I think such arguments fail (or don’t really fail, simply are not relevant) because they are divorced from anthropology: human beings are predators, and predators have parts of their brains which operate by recognizing profiles. A lion hunts a gazelle because it fits the lion’s profile: you don’t see a lion attacking a tree. A hot dog is a piece of meat between two pieces of bread, so technically it is a sandwich, but it just doesn’t LOOK like a sandwich, and we can’t say why.

    This is one of the problems of the whole transgender issue. Human beings have separate profiles for men and women which are a biological fact of their brains, and you cannot wish it away just by hectoring people enough. When a typical human sees an individual who fits the “male” profile claiming to fit the “female” profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress. Trans people seem to think only of their own interests, and not the discomfort they cause their fellow human beings: they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.

    • Agree: Red Pill Angel, sayless
    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    No need to overthink it. Deep down, even transgenders know that they are not "real women". Or they wouldn't be called "trans"-genders. It's all about forcing anomalies and cognitive dissonance on others. The same cognitive dissonance they likely feel. Like with hot dogs, someone who has or had a "sausage" at birth, is not a "woman". They may identify as they wish but that won't change biology.

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra

    , @Anonymous
    @The Germ Theory of Disease


    human beings are predators,
     
    Citation needed.
    , @res
    @The Germ Theory of Disease


    they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.
     
    Pretty much an encapsulation of The Current Year.
    , @Forbes
    @The Germ Theory of Disease


    When a typical human sees an individual who fits the “male” profile claiming to fit the “female” profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress.
     
    No cognitive dissonance here--it causes me to see and think, "freak." Possibly, "insane freak." And more than likely, "insane, in need of mental health help or therapy."

    The 'trans' are seriously troubled people who are not helped by our participation in their charade of self-deception.
    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @The Germ Theory of Disease


    This is one of the problems of the whole transgender issue. Human beings have separate profiles for men and women which are a biological fact of their brains, and you cannot wish it away just by hectoring people enough. When a typical human sees an individual who fits the “male” profile claiming to fit the “female” profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress. Trans people seem to think only of their own interests, and not the discomfort they cause their fellow human beings: they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.
     
    So close, but then you hid the realisation behind abstractions.

    Yes, seeing other people in pain does hurt. This makes it yours, in fact. How do you acknowledge this?
  45. On the contrary, such false “rights” claims actually amount to severe rights violations of the vast majority of everyday language-users and citizens and cause irreparable damage to the set of shared social and linguistic practices necessary for coordinating the basic public goods of a free, flourishing, and truth-preserving society.

    As i’ve repeatedly pointed out–but it simply remains true–the tranny looniness is not some special unique one-off.

    The tranny nonsense and thuggery is simply the latest instantiation of the minoritarian ideology:
    Minorities have the right to make the majority accommodate it.

    Sure it’s insane and whackadoodle. But “transgenderism” actually less insane than a society accepting minoritarianism as a its reigning ideology/legal system.

    In a healthy society/nation the majority carries on with its culture–does whatever it needs or wants to do for its survival and healthy functioning–and minorities accommodate themselves to that–or leave. It can not be other than thus. The reverse–minoritarianism–means death for the nation.

    Conservatives could blow this tranny crap out of the water because of its obvious insanity. (Doubt it, but possible.) But that won’t make an iota of difference to anything unless they move on to destroy minoritarianism. At the rate things are going now America and West simply won’t exist much longer. Minoritarianism is national/civilizational death.

    • Agree: Forbes
  46. @Anon
    @Reg Cæsar



    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”
     
    This sort of incremental idiocy is exactly how they do it.
     
    Look! A squirrel!

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    You again.

    It doesn’t matter what they force us to do; the point is that they force us at all. The “transgender” business is not a diversion, it’s the kid glove worn by the mailed fist. That’s why
    303 Creative v. Elenis was taken up by a civil liberties group. A real one.

    I don’t expect you to grasp this point, but others here will with no problem.

  47. @JackOH
    @Mr. Blank

    Mr. Blank, I appreciate all the comments on UR, but some folks seem to believe we contrarians here have more power and influence than we actually do. Many of us here are simply not in a position to meaningfully push back against the latest insult to our work skills, our sense of order, or--Chrissake--our personal dignity.

    I gather the shoe has been on the other foot for some time. Instead of racism, homophobia, misogyny and what-not, we ought to be talking calmly about anti-White racism, heterophobia, misandry. Abetted, of course, by law, bovine popular opinion, and Big Business, the last of which sees advantage in dissolving traditionalist-conservative patterns of thought and behavior.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘I gather the shoe has been on the other foot for some time. Instead of racism, homophobia, misogyny and what-not, we ought to be talking calmly about anti-White racism, heterophobia, misandry. Abetted, of course, by law, bovine popular opinion, and Big Business, the last of which sees advantage in dissolving traditionalist-conservative patterns of thought and behavior.’

    I think this is still missing the point.

    You’re still seeking — at least implicitly — some sort of equitable solution.

    Nah, That’s not how it works. They’ve started a war. You can lose, or you can win.

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Replies: @JackOH
    @Colin Wright

    You're right, of course, but I think for the smalltime dissenter, with neither muscle nor money in his favor, the better part of valor is to adopt a "naive/9th grade civics" attitude. Assume that a policy that sticks in your craw is a consequence of honest error or unintentional oversight, and that opinion leaders will welcome reasoned dissent.

    Maintaining that "naive" pose can be a real stressor when it becomes more and more clear our opinion leaders want reasoned dissenters to shut the fuck up, or channel their thoughts into controlled opposition: Dem and Repub factions, bureaucratized interest groups, etc.

    But, again, as a general rule, our overlords are okay with zero-sum politics that they try to portray as win-win.

  48. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    I agree with Reg here. This cultural revoulution is part of the conquering and, in fact, a pretty good start. If people won't fight back the purposeful stupidity on these issues, they sure as hell ain't gonna fight when the Communist Feral government starts telling them to stay inside for a month as a personal LOCKDOWN for some trangression or another.

    America is full of pussies who are now masking up for Season 3 of the Flu Manchu PanicFest as I write. I had a run in at a gas station with a fat broad who wanted to take my temperature. I really was going to let her, but she took issue with a few remarks that included the words "hysterical", "retarded", and "you ain't gonna die today, lady." That gas station didn't make a sale of 4 gallons, a cherry Coke, and a bag of Starburst gummies, let me tell you right now. I've been banned from 76.

    Replies: @El Dato, @tyrone, @Anonymous

    You shouldn’t eat ultra-processed “food”.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @El Dato

    El Dato, it was on a family road trip*, and my kid gets those treats only on occasion. The Cherry Coke was for me to keep awake for another couple of hundred miles.

    You are quite right to put "food" in scare quotes.

    I picked up enough material for 10 blog posts already on this trip. Holy crap, I had no idea some parts of the country are freaked out again. There's a reason I have to hold on the details for a while.

    .

    * So the "Spirit of '76 gas station banning was not a big deal. Down the road I go ... [/old CCR]

  49. @Right_On
    @Deckin

    The Austrian logician can be hard work.

    You say that "a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon". But suppose Humpty-Dumpty were to define language as "a written or spoken record of meaning", or some-such; which could be utilized in a private diary. Why can't 'language' mean just what he chooses it to mean?

    In his Ethics, Spinoza stipulates the precise meanings of the terms he will be using. Suppose he'd never wanted anyone else to read his book and it had been written just to exercise Spinoza's intellectual talents. I can't see why that would invalidate his procedure.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Dieter Kief

    Suppose he’d never wanted anyone else to read his book and it had been written just to exercise Spinoza’s intellectual talents. I can’t see why that would invalidate his procedure.

    That sounds like the premise of a Borges story.

    And why not? A “language” is ultimately a set of certain allowed graphs between nodes representing concepts which agent A transfers to agent B in order to elicit (intended) changes in agent B. There is nothing that prohibits A and B being the same. In particular A may use the language as record-keeping device. The pre-requisite is that A and B have the same idea of “intended changes”.

  50. @Abolish_public_education
    Don’t indulge the idiots.

    When someone corrects you about use of their preferred pronouns, just tell them to shut up.

    Replies: @Yawrate, @Mr. Blank, @Desiderius, @Anon, @notbe, @El Dato, @Forbes

    But silence is violence!

  51. @notbe
    @Herp McDerp

    its a bit different-ishi was speaking a language that had internal rules that ishi had to follow when speaking it ishi wasnt making up his own rules when speaking yana that ishi was the only speaker of that language doesnt matter, other speakers had to follow the same rules...unfortunately they died out, one after the other leaving only ishi

    Replies: @Herp McDerp

    ishi was speaking a language that had internal rules that ishi had to follow when speaking it
    ishi wasnt making up his own rules when speaking yana

    Wait. Wasn’t a key element of Wittgenstein’s argument that someone with a private language could make up his own rules, which would invalidate it?

    Or maybe Ishi did make up his own rules, and Ishi’s private Yana was different from “pure” Yana. Would that affect the answer to the question? And how would we ever know?

    • Replies: @notbe
    @Herp McDerp

    we would never know if a sole surviving speaker of an undocumented language that has only distant linquistic relatives is making up his rules but i would say its unlikely-usually sole survivivors are either old or middle aged, they been speaking that language with deceased relatives and friends for a long time

    in ishis case, its unlikely he would suddenly develop new rules of grammar, word meanings, new vocabulary like transpeople do when suddenly they want to be referred as "xir" or whatever those nutscases currently use as their form of adress

    an equivalent might be the last speaker of english, he or she would say "I am speaking english, which is a language that i am the last speaker of" instead of "Xir spoke Ing, lang xir ended talk talk"

    ishis belief system and technology was verified by anthropologist as similar to related surviving california indians- ishi did not develop new ways of discussing the universe, taboos, or a new way of constructing a bow and arrow instead his beliefs and technological know how were in the milleu of california native groups thus again its unlikely that ishsis language was developed by him but rather he was speaking a language which predated him

    correct me if im wrong but anthropologists thought ishsis language was similar to the languages of related indians thus ishi was probably not speaking his own made up language- in fact, i think, anthropologists could communicate with ishi initially by using related native languages

    I think wittengenstein was discussing a hypothetical case-my understanding is that he thought that a case of someone making his or xers own language rules then forcing everyone to comply was too ridicilous to actually be possible welcome to western civilization in the 21st century

  52. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Simon
    There are certain things you may choose to do out of courtesy.

    When Egbert Souse, played by W.C. Fields, claims his name is pronounced SUE-say -- "accent grave over the 'e' " (he meant, of course, accent aigu) -- you may go along with it just to be polite.

    When my little sister, at age 5 or 6, insisted she wanted to be a cowboy and not a cowgirl when she grew up, I shouldn't have argued with her (and today regret that I did). I probably should have humored her.

    When a lunatic demands that you call him "Dr." or "Your royal highness" or "Napoleon," you may want to humor him as well.

    But there's no reason why we should believe any of it, nor keep up the pretense when that person isn't around.

    The same goes for people who claim to be the sex they are not.

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @Anonymous, @Cortes

    This is a reasonable argument, and I’m sure many decent and intelligent people would find it convincing.
    But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives his or her lunacy as aligned with the moral flow of history. And yet what the confused person perceives as freedom and moral progress is growing totalitarianism and evil.
    I think what is required in our times is immediate rebuke.
    You are being asked to lie.
    And you are being asked to lie in a way that directly and indirectly fosters deep moral evil.
    Anyone concerned about how others perceive their gender is salvageable.
    They don’t fully believe absolute nonsense.
    You are harming them by accomodating them.
    But of course, we have to choose our battles, and the “bigger” moral problem is that you are harming others.
    You are harming clueless young men and women who might feel the attraction of the nonsense as a way of validating their existence in a world that increasingly hides meaning from most.
    And you are harming more sane men and women who nonetheless might not fully internally perceive manhood or womanhood as intrinsic to who they are, and so might waver in trying to become the best man or woman possible.

    DO NOT TELL ME TO LIE.
    You might lose your job or “friends”, but you will become stronger.

    • Replies: @VivaLaMigra
    @Anonymous


    But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives his or her [[sic] lunacy
     
    May I suggest that a far more fluent construction would be: " But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives one's lunacy...." The use of the indefinite pronoun "one" eliminates the very clumsy, and utterly unnecessary, "his or her." The use of the pronoun "his" in this context has been accepted, and grammatically correct, for centuries. We don't know the specific gender of this hypothetical person, but we do know we're discussing ONE person and the singular pronoun "his" suffices. CONTEXT matters in language. Any literate speaker of English is taught to accept that "his" isn't gender specific in this usage; it's the singular form that's significant to the meaning of the phrase.

    Replies: @Eagle Eye

    , @njguy73
    @Anonymous


    You might lose your job or “friends”, but you will become stronger.

     

    I sure hope your mortgage is paid off and you have F-You money in the bank.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  53. I think the chance to avoid men’s prison has to be a pretty big incentive for some people:

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/far-too-dangerous-triple-killer-regina-arthurell-placed-under-strict-supervision-20210805-p58g4l.html

    I admire the journalist’s restraint and understatement.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @DuanDiRen

    If you can be aggressed by homicidal trans maniacs, you are one step nearer to societal bliss.


    He said Arthurell’s physical health was ″⁣quite poor″⁣ and included hand tremors and being blind in one eye due to glaucoma, and that she was living an ″⁣extremely circumscribed, isolated, difficult life in the community″⁣.
     
    All of that could have been avoided with the death penalty.
  54. @Anon
    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    You are either fools or cowards.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @El Dato, @Gordo

    Why not look for love in unexpected places instead?

    It beggars belief that a trans YouTube star, arrested for allegedly raping his own mother, will be jailed with women inmates

    Police in Virginia have classified Chris Chan, 39, as female because he says he’s a trans woman, but he is biologically male and has allegedly admitted to raping his mother, 79, who suffers from dementia. We live in a sick world.

    Silence is Violence.
    Sickness is Progress.
    Rolling immigro-trucks are pension security.
    Bronze Age Pervert has been banned from Twitter.
    PayPal gives your purchasing history to the ADL.
    Embrace the dieversity!

    • Thanks: photondancer
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @El Dato

    If they ever remake Silence of the Lambs would Hannibal Lecter be played as a Tranny?
    And presumably be locked up in a women's prison?

    , @Anon
    @El Dato


    It beggars belief that a trans YouTube star, arrested for allegedly raping his own mother, will be jailed with women inmates
     
    Female convicts don’t need you to look out for them. They have—or will have—plenty of support from elsewhere.

    You are needed at the border.

    Bronze Age Pervert has been banned from Twitter.
    PayPal gives your purchasing history to the ADL.
    Embrace the dieversity!
     
    One of BAP’s last tweets before he was banned permanently advocated for a singular focus on immigration and repatriation.
  55. @DuanDiRen
    I think the chance to avoid men's prison has to be a pretty big incentive for some people:

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/far-too-dangerous-triple-killer-regina-arthurell-placed-under-strict-supervision-20210805-p58g4l.html

    I admire the journalist's restraint and understatement.

    Replies: @El Dato

    If you can be aggressed by homicidal trans maniacs, you are one step nearer to societal bliss.

    He said Arthurell’s physical health was ″⁣quite poor″⁣ and included hand tremors and being blind in one eye due to glaucoma, and that she was living an ″⁣extremely circumscribed, isolated, difficult life in the community″⁣.

    All of that could have been avoided with the death penalty.

  56. @Simon
    There are certain things you may choose to do out of courtesy.

    When Egbert Souse, played by W.C. Fields, claims his name is pronounced SUE-say -- "accent grave over the 'e' " (he meant, of course, accent aigu) -- you may go along with it just to be polite.

    When my little sister, at age 5 or 6, insisted she wanted to be a cowboy and not a cowgirl when she grew up, I shouldn't have argued with her (and today regret that I did). I probably should have humored her.

    When a lunatic demands that you call him "Dr." or "Your royal highness" or "Napoleon," you may want to humor him as well.

    But there's no reason why we should believe any of it, nor keep up the pretense when that person isn't around.

    The same goes for people who claim to be the sex they are not.

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @Anonymous, @Cortes

    The Souse/SUE-say scenario underpinned the success of the BBC sitcom

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances

    featuring Hyacinth Bucket (“Bouquet”) which was popular in the USA, according to the Wikipedia article.

    In his chapter dedicated to surnames, Basil Cottle’s “Names” includes the hilarious example of an East Anglian occupational surname – Hogsflesh (pork butcher) – which a 1970s bearer insisted was pronounced “Hooflay”.

    Pretensions about names are essentially harmless as long as they are the result of individual snobbery, social insecurities or mental problems and can safely be humoured. Where an organised claque is attempting to enforce acceptance of them, they have to be resisted.

  57. such false “rights” claims actually amount to severe rights violations of the vast majority of everyday language-users and citizens and cause irreparable damage to the set of shared social and linguistic practices necessary for coordinating the basic public goods of a free, flourishing, and truth-preserving society.

    The social and political consequence of allowing such false rights claims to swell unopposed to the level of positive rights claims, eventually codifying into actual state-compelled law (as is already the case with Canada’s Bill C-16 and soon to be with America’s Equality Act) will be nothing less than the legal sanctioning of a new priest class of magical people who speak all of reality into existence, and then the rest of society who must simply obey.

    1) These are precise remarks about language.

    2) Language is a collective accomplishment and a good example for a common good.

    3) The misuse of it thus being a good example of the tragedy of the commons.

    • Agree: El Dato
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    1) These are precise remarks about language.

    2) Language is a collective accomplishment and a good example for a common good.

    3) The misuse of it thus being a good example of the tragedy of the commons.

    Karl Kraus famously espoused the idea that precision in language is indispensable and imprecision heralds the fall of civilization "denn hätten die Leute, die dazu verpflichtet sind, immer darauf geachtet, daß die Beistriche am richtigen Platz stehen, so würde Shanghai nicht brennen.“ = " for if those charged to look after commas had always ensured they were in the right place, Shanghai would not be burning'. (That was written during the 1932 bombardment of Shanghai by the Japanese.)

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  58. @Right_On
    @Deckin

    The Austrian logician can be hard work.

    You say that "a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon". But suppose Humpty-Dumpty were to define language as "a written or spoken record of meaning", or some-such; which could be utilized in a private diary. Why can't 'language' mean just what he chooses it to mean?

    In his Ethics, Spinoza stipulates the precise meanings of the terms he will be using. Suppose he'd never wanted anyone else to read his book and it had been written just to exercise Spinoza's intellectual talents. I can't see why that would invalidate his procedure.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Dieter Kief

    Aww, he finds himself at times bound or bewitched even, by his own observations. Wittgenstein too then has to cross the swamp of the Ego-philosophy. – The way out being intersubjective philosophy (Jürgen Habermas).

    • Replies: @Anon62
    @Dieter Kief

    Habermas' primary concern is the role of intersubjectivity in human affairs.

    What we call "truth" is something that is agreed between the two of us, or is agreed by tacit common usage within the community of which we find ourselves a part. It is true that "freedom fries" may have once existed but that particular usage is now deprecated and forgotten.

    It is clear from history (and also contemporary practice) that we find some "truth" claims to be highly objectionable. One groups ideal may be another groups holocaust.

    Another example - "the rules based international order" means precisely whatever the global hegemon claims it means and, as is presently the case, any such proclamation by the hegemon is likely to conflict with accepted international law and the contemporary usage and meaning endorsed and accepted by other states.

    As has been asserted up thread any intersubjective "truth claim" (and all "truth claims" are intersubjective) is subject to contestation. In the anarchy of international relations any claim by the hegemon may ultimately be contested by other states and this invariably proceeds to armed conflict after which the victor writes history.

    This endless process is known as "progress."

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  59. @Anon
    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    You are either fools or cowards.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman, @El Dato, @Gordo

    Europe and the United States are in the process of being conquered.

    Yet people here would rather obsess about transgenders, or about “mask mandates.”

    You are either fools or cowards.

    Big game / little game.

    You are allowed to play the little game but the big game is out of bounds.

  60. @Red Pill Angel
    Wittgenstein was Jewish, but raised as a Catholic, in a palatial home in Vienna. Klimpt painted his sister and Brahms was a regular guest who played on one of the nine or ten grand pianos in the home. Guess who was his schoolmate, the same age but in a different grade at the Linz Realschule? None other than little Hitler himself, the most evil little kid ever ever. I can't figure out, though, how Hitler could have been going to school with the offspring of the second richest kid in Europe, after the Rothschilds. Was it a free school? Was Hitler richer than we knew? A mystery. It has been proposed that the hated Jewish schoolmate in Mein Kampf was none other than Wittgenstein. In addition, Wittgenstein might well have been the "fifth man" in the Kim Philby spy ring at Cambridge. He almost certainly was a Soviet spy for years.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon, @El Dato

    That sounds like one could massage it into a plot for a Robert Harris potboiler.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

    Born in Vienna into one of Europe’s richest families, he inherited a fortune from his father in 1913. He initially made some donations to artists and writers, and then, in a period of severe personal depression after World War I, he gave away his entire fortune to his brothers and sisters.[20][21] Three of his four older brothers died by separate acts of suicide. Wittgenstein left academia several times—serving as an officer on the front line during World War I, where he was decorated a number of times for his courage; teaching in schools in remote Austrian villages, where he encountered controversy for use of violence, to girls and to a boy (the Haidbauer incident), during mathematics classes;

    I can sympathize.

    Also an early anti-vaxxer.

    and working during World War II as a hospital porter in London, notably telling patients not to take the drugs they were prescribed, and also later as a hospital laboratory technician at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Apparently part-jewish (unlike famous contemporary logicians like Gentzen, just saying)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#Jewish_background_and_Hitler

    There is much debate about the extent to which Wittgenstein and his siblings, who were of 3/4 Jewish descent, saw themselves as Jews.

    and

    In his own writings Wittgenstein frequently referred to himself as Jewish, at times as part of an apparent self-flagellation. For example, while berating himself for being a “reproductive” as opposed to “productive” thinker, he attributed this to his own Jewish sense of identity, writing:

    The saint is the only Jewish genius. Even the greatest Jewish thinker is no more than talented. (Myself for instance).

    Being in the same class as young Hitler ruins you!

    For an infodump of preternatural proportions, go to:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-atomism/
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/

    which mentions neither Hitler nor Jews.

    Anyway, fascinating.

    swole_doge.jpg

    • Thanks: Red Pill Angel
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @El Dato

    National Review ran an article in the 1970s about Wittgenstein's eccentricities, which were remarkable.

    Replies: @slumber_j, @black sea

  61. Anon[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    @Abolish_public_education

    Why are the preferred pronouns in the third person? Seems that the most important pronoun is second person - you. How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    Replies: @Herp McDerp, @International Jew, @Anon, @VivaLaMigra

    I saw a Twitter account today from a female anthro Ph.D. with preferred pronouns of “she/they.” Huh? Which is it? Either? You don’t care which?

    How do you get out of high school and through a Ph.D. program without learning English grammar?

    Possible preferred pronouns are:

    — she/her or she/her/herself

    — they/them or they/them/their/theirs/themself

    The idea is you choose a gender, he, she, or they, and then you decline out as much as you want from there; usually a single extra declension is enough to show the pattern. I think just saying he, she, or they is enough. In the beginning of this madness the idea was that people would choose made-up pronouns, but even the woke decided that was going too far. In that case you’d need the whole declension: xhe/xhem/xher/xhers/xhemsylf.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
    @Anon

    If your good doctor is in the next room, would one say "They are in the next room." or "They is in the next room."?

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Anon

    I saw a Twitter account today from a female anthro Ph.D. with preferred pronouns of “she/they.”

    Perhaps she's making a mockery of the whole thing. (We can hope.)

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Anon

    Why are you forcing her into the binary of using/not-using, choosing/not-choosing, having/not-having? Obviously, she is free! Free from people, but free to make demands on people! Wittgenstein was an oppressor!

  62. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    If it didn't have such catastrophic consequences, the whole thing would remind me of the old philosophy joke about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not. There's a funny cartoon about two philosophers sitting in front of a hot dog, arguing about whether it's a sandwich. Wittgenstein walks into the room, and one of them asks, "Wittgenstein, will you please hand me that sandwich?" To which Wittgenstein replies, "Certainly."

    The assertion being that language is determined by usage, not by intrinsic meaning, or even necessarily by common convention.

    Personally I think such arguments fail (or don't really fail, simply are not relevant) because they are divorced from anthropology: human beings are predators, and predators have parts of their brains which operate by recognizing profiles. A lion hunts a gazelle because it fits the lion's profile: you don't see a lion attacking a tree. A hot dog is a piece of meat between two pieces of bread, so technically it is a sandwich, but it just doesn't LOOK like a sandwich, and we can't say why.

    This is one of the problems of the whole transgender issue. Human beings have separate profiles for men and women which are a biological fact of their brains, and you cannot wish it away just by hectoring people enough. When a typical human sees an individual who fits the "male" profile claiming to fit the "female" profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress. Trans people seem to think only of their own interests, and not the discomfort they cause their fellow human beings: they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @res, @Forbes, @Triteleia Laxa

    No need to overthink it. Deep down, even transgenders know that they are not “real women”. Or they wouldn’t be called “trans”-genders. It’s all about forcing anomalies and cognitive dissonance on others. The same cognitive dissonance they likely feel. Like with hot dogs, someone who has or had a “sausage” at birth, is not a “woman”. They may identify as they wish but that won’t change biology.

    • Replies: @VivaLaMigra
    @Dumbo


    "They [sic] may identify as they [sic] wish but that won’t change biology."
     
    Um, you just fell into theSnowflakes' trap of using "they" to refer to a single individual, and one with a "sausage" to boot; ie. a male. So, the proper construction of your final sentence would be "He may identify as he wishes but that won't change biology." Note that the antecedent of the pronoun in the final sentence is "someone" from the phrase in the preceding sentence "someone who has or had a 'sausage' at birth...." In that sentence, you have ONE person, ie. "someone." You have him [see what I did there?] paired with a singular "sausage" at the time of his birth. These pronouns which clarify the GENDER of the hypothetical person in question make the whole construction more precise. We don't know the exact individual to whom we're referrring, but we DO know he was born with a penis and is therefore male.
  63. @El Dato
    @Red Pill Angel

    That sounds like one could massage it into a plot for a Robert Harris potboiler.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein


    Born in Vienna into one of Europe's richest families, he inherited a fortune from his father in 1913. He initially made some donations to artists and writers, and then, in a period of severe personal depression after World War I, he gave away his entire fortune to his brothers and sisters.[20][21] Three of his four older brothers died by separate acts of suicide. Wittgenstein left academia several times—serving as an officer on the front line during World War I, where he was decorated a number of times for his courage; teaching in schools in remote Austrian villages, where he encountered controversy for use of violence, to girls and to a boy (the Haidbauer incident), during mathematics classes;

     

    I can sympathize.

    Also an early anti-vaxxer.


    and working during World War II as a hospital porter in London, notably telling patients not to take the drugs they were prescribed, and also later as a hospital laboratory technician at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle upon Tyne.

     

    Apparently part-jewish (unlike famous contemporary logicians like Gentzen, just saying)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#Jewish_background_and_Hitler

    There is much debate about the extent to which Wittgenstein and his siblings, who were of 3/4 Jewish descent, saw themselves as Jews.
     

    and

    In his own writings Wittgenstein frequently referred to himself as Jewish, at times as part of an apparent self-flagellation. For example, while berating himself for being a "reproductive" as opposed to "productive" thinker, he attributed this to his own Jewish sense of identity, writing:

    The saint is the only Jewish genius. Even the greatest Jewish thinker is no more than talented. (Myself for instance).
     

    Being in the same class as young Hitler ruins you!

    For an infodump of preternatural proportions, go to:

    - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
    - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-atomism/
    - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/

    which mentions neither Hitler nor Jews.

    Anyway, fascinating.

    swole_doge.jpg

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    National Review ran an article in the 1970s about Wittgenstein’s eccentricities, which were remarkable.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @Steve Sailer

    Because of his subject's personal weirdness, literally incredible life circumstances and peripatetic tendencies, Ray Monk's Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius is the rare biography of an academic philosopher that you actually want to read all the way through. I recommend it highly.

    Anyway, I made reference to some of these Wittgensteinian concerns about language the other day in a comment on your post on whether species do or do not exist. With apologies for quoting myself, but I think this is relevant here too:


    Utility of expressions does lie at the heart of Wittgenstein’s work, and the very human tendency to confuse expression and referent is one of his biggest concerns and I think the more relevant one here. Whether species exist is a question that has a lot more to do with how we use the word than anything else: as ever, language is a social convention.

    Top-down insistence on telling us what words may or may not mean is necessarily nonsense. Until recently most Anglophones understood this at least implicitly, which is why (unlike the French or Spanish e.g.) we lack an Academy to dictate what words mean. We have the OED or whatever to point us in the right direction, but it’s not prescriptive. English Common Law is a legal analogue to this by the way, a fact I’ve never seen discussed, but probably I’m just ignorant.
     

    Replies: @ThreeCranes

    , @black sea
    @Steve Sailer

    The Austrian writer Thomas Bernhard wrote a memoir/novel about his friendship with Wittgenstein's nephew. As Bernhard describes it, he ultimately succumbed to the periodic bouts of mental illness which afflicted him. Bernhard, no beacon of happiness himself, renders this progression in unsparing detail. Well worth the time, if you're feeling overly chipper.

    Quotation below:


    “Seen from across the street, he was like someone to whom the world had long since given notice to quit but who was compelled to stay in it, no longer belonging to it, but unable to leave it.”
    ― Thomas Bernhard, Wittgenstein's Nephew
     

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  64. @Deckin
    The author seriously understates the force of Wittgenstein's argument.

    The point is not merely that a private language, by lacking public checks to maintain 'fixity' would be untenable because the user of a private language could always shift meanings on a whim--hence there couldn't be a language, in the sense that a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon.

    The deeper point, made explicitly by Wittgenstein, is that the user himself could never be sure that he had indeed shifted meanings or hadn't. That's because the only check for the user for any term (the way he keeps track) is memory; but what would he use to check his memory? Without a public check of the memory he's using to check his ever shifting meanings, he'd never know if what's he's using the word 'N'--Wittgenstein's example, for refers to the same thing, a different thing, or frankly anything stable enough to be named at all.

    It's quite a skeptical tour de force.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar, @Right_On, @Dieter Kief, @Papinian

    I’d beg to differ a bit. Because what Wittgenstein here exemplifies is mostly right, but not quite right. Mostly right, in that language as a social tool, is open to criticism and correction by anybody (its strength and mode of progress/development – and at the same time its inherent weakness).

    As Right-On points out below, Wittgenstein is wrong in claiming that the use of a private language would necessarily lead to loss of memory or some such mistakes.

    But we can leave this aspect here aside because Michael Robillard in Quillette clearly tackles no private use of language, but a public one. Robillard’s argument stands. It is a rather important purpose of language to serve public means and this purpose is in dire straits, as soon as people treat it as if it would be an ultimately or – essentially – private thing to claim things to be true in public. The point here is what should be acknowledged as truth. And the answer is: With regard to biology and the like: The truth is what can be publicly defended as true via sound (solid/scientific) arguments. Biology is no subjective matter at all and you should not try to circumvent this well-estalbished fact by insisting on your subjective perspective – unless you are a – three-year-old kid, let’s say.

    PS

    Seen from this perspective it is reasonable to oppose everybody who wants to force others to acknowledge their private truth in essentially non-subjective contexts. That is the systematically most important point here.

    It is ok to say, the paintings of my wife express the highest truths since this does not collide with any widely accepted standards about truth.

    It is not ok if person x expects from others that they accept whatever sex person x declares to have because there are publicly accepted objective criteria that define what that word sex means.

  65. @Deckin
    The author seriously understates the force of Wittgenstein's argument.

    The point is not merely that a private language, by lacking public checks to maintain 'fixity' would be untenable because the user of a private language could always shift meanings on a whim--hence there couldn't be a language, in the sense that a language is, by definition, a group phenomenon.

    The deeper point, made explicitly by Wittgenstein, is that the user himself could never be sure that he had indeed shifted meanings or hadn't. That's because the only check for the user for any term (the way he keeps track) is memory; but what would he use to check his memory? Without a public check of the memory he's using to check his ever shifting meanings, he'd never know if what's he's using the word 'N'--Wittgenstein's example, for refers to the same thing, a different thing, or frankly anything stable enough to be named at all.

    It's quite a skeptical tour de force.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar, @Right_On, @Dieter Kief, @Papinian

    The memory isn’t as bad as all that. Let’s say I now want to call a handle a “befret” instead. Not hard to do! And provided I don’t pile new words onto myself too quickly, I don’t see any problem maintaining an increasing numbers of these words, indefinitely. The memory isn’t super great, but it’s not totally impotent, either!

  66. Well, Mr Sailer, if you can force people to get a vaccine they really don’t want, you surely can force them to use any and all pronouns.

    Human nature really is malleable, and we are about to find out just how much.

  67. @Mr. Blank
    @Abolish_public_education

    If only it were that simple. I nearly lost my job for refusing to defer to another person's preferred pronouns. I probably would have lost it if I hadn't been able to play the "tragically ill wife" card. It felt dirty to resort to that, but then again, I was about to lose my job over pronouns.

    Replies: @JackOH, @Hangnail Hans, @tyrone, @Stan d Mute

    Feel dirty?….try feeling like you are behind enemy lines ,a little “taqiya” may be in order…..good luck to you and the Mrs.

  68. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    I agree with Reg here. This cultural revoulution is part of the conquering and, in fact, a pretty good start. If people won't fight back the purposeful stupidity on these issues, they sure as hell ain't gonna fight when the Communist Feral government starts telling them to stay inside for a month as a personal LOCKDOWN for some trangression or another.

    America is full of pussies who are now masking up for Season 3 of the Flu Manchu PanicFest as I write. I had a run in at a gas station with a fat broad who wanted to take my temperature. I really was going to let her, but she took issue with a few remarks that included the words "hysterical", "retarded", and "you ain't gonna die today, lady." That gas station didn't make a sale of 4 gallons, a cherry Coke, and a bag of Starburst gummies, let me tell you right now. I've been banned from 76.

    Replies: @El Dato, @tyrone, @Anonymous

    It’s always interesting to get a little slice of life…….. cherry coke?…..starburst gummies?….they didn’t have the extremely red hot dogs rotating in the broiler?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @tyrone

    You'll always get a slice of ... somethin' from me here. No, there was a foyer of sorts in that store, so I didn't get in to see if they had the shrunken bright red hot dogs. ;-}

    I did find out recently that there are at least 5, FIVE, flavors of Moon Pies. I had no idea...

  69. @Bill H.
    @JackOH

    In a discussion, my 45-yr-old liberal niece said that the dictionary meaning of "radical" (which I had cited) was not what she meant by her use of the word. I asked her what she intended the word to mean and she could not say, only that it was not what the dictionary said it was.

    Replies: @Badger Down

    And nothing to do with radishes, roots, uprooting, ausrottung, and eradicating. Voi-voi (a Finnish sigh of despair).

  70. @Anon
    @Anon

    I saw a Twitter account today from a female anthro Ph.D. with preferred pronouns of "she/they." Huh? Which is it? Either? You don't care which?

    How do you get out of high school and through a Ph.D. program without learning English grammar?

    Possible preferred pronouns are:

    -- she/her or she/her/herself

    -- they/them or they/them/their/theirs/themself

    The idea is you choose a gender, he, she, or they, and then you decline out as much as you want from there; usually a single extra declension is enough to show the pattern. I think just saying he, she, or they is enough. In the beginning of this madness the idea was that people would choose made-up pronouns, but even the woke decided that was going too far. In that case you'd need the whole declension: xhe/xhem/xher/xhers/xhemsylf.

    Replies: @Badger Down, @Harry Baldwin, @Chrisnonymous

    If your good doctor is in the next room, would one say “They are in the next room.” or “They is in the next room.”?

  71. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    If it didn't have such catastrophic consequences, the whole thing would remind me of the old philosophy joke about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not. There's a funny cartoon about two philosophers sitting in front of a hot dog, arguing about whether it's a sandwich. Wittgenstein walks into the room, and one of them asks, "Wittgenstein, will you please hand me that sandwich?" To which Wittgenstein replies, "Certainly."

    The assertion being that language is determined by usage, not by intrinsic meaning, or even necessarily by common convention.

    Personally I think such arguments fail (or don't really fail, simply are not relevant) because they are divorced from anthropology: human beings are predators, and predators have parts of their brains which operate by recognizing profiles. A lion hunts a gazelle because it fits the lion's profile: you don't see a lion attacking a tree. A hot dog is a piece of meat between two pieces of bread, so technically it is a sandwich, but it just doesn't LOOK like a sandwich, and we can't say why.

    This is one of the problems of the whole transgender issue. Human beings have separate profiles for men and women which are a biological fact of their brains, and you cannot wish it away just by hectoring people enough. When a typical human sees an individual who fits the "male" profile claiming to fit the "female" profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress. Trans people seem to think only of their own interests, and not the discomfort they cause their fellow human beings: they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @res, @Forbes, @Triteleia Laxa

    human beings are predators,

    Citation needed.

  72. @Herp McDerp
    @notbe

    ishi was speaking a language that had internal rules that ishi had to follow when speaking it
    ishi wasnt making up his own rules when speaking yana


    Wait. Wasn't a key element of Wittgenstein’s argument that someone with a private language could make up his own rules, which would invalidate it?

    Or maybe Ishi did make up his own rules, and Ishi's private Yana was different from "pure" Yana. Would that affect the answer to the question? And how would we ever know?

    Replies: @notbe

    we would never know if a sole surviving speaker of an undocumented language that has only distant linquistic relatives is making up his rules but i would say its unlikely-usually sole survivivors are either old or middle aged, they been speaking that language with deceased relatives and friends for a long time

    in ishis case, its unlikely he would suddenly develop new rules of grammar, word meanings, new vocabulary like transpeople do when suddenly they want to be referred as “xir” or whatever those nutscases currently use as their form of adress

    an equivalent might be the last speaker of english, he or she would say “I am speaking english, which is a language that i am the last speaker of” instead of “Xir spoke Ing, lang xir ended talk talk”

    ishis belief system and technology was verified by anthropologist as similar to related surviving california indians- ishi did not develop new ways of discussing the universe, taboos, or a new way of constructing a bow and arrow instead his beliefs and technological know how were in the milleu of california native groups thus again its unlikely that ishsis language was developed by him but rather he was speaking a language which predated him

    correct me if im wrong but anthropologists thought ishsis language was similar to the languages of related indians thus ishi was probably not speaking his own made up language- in fact, i think, anthropologists could communicate with ishi initially by using related native languages

    I think wittengenstein was discussing a hypothetical case-my understanding is that he thought that a case of someone making his or xers own language rules then forcing everyone to comply was too ridicilous to actually be possible welcome to western civilization in the 21st century

  73. @El Dato
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You shouldn't eat ultra-processed "food".

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    El Dato, it was on a family road trip*, and my kid gets those treats only on occasion. The Cherry Coke was for me to keep awake for another couple of hundred miles.

    You are quite right to put “food” in scare quotes.

    I picked up enough material for 10 blog posts already on this trip. Holy crap, I had no idea some parts of the country are freaked out again. There’s a reason I have to hold on the details for a while.

    .

    * So the “Spirit of ’76 gas station banning was not a big deal. Down the road I go … [/old CCR]

  74. @Herp McDerp
    @Anon

    How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    This!

    Perhaps I'm just a coward, but when talking and writing about third parties I don't use pronouns if there's any degree of ambiguity or or uncertainty, or if I disagree with that person* about gender or sexual identity. There are alternatives, including the person's name, job title, or substitutions like "that idiot."

    The Woke are litigious, and it gives them a sense of power to ruin other people's lives.

    -----------------------------
    *There, for example.

    Replies: @Dr. DoomNGloom

    Perhaps I’m just a coward, but when talking and writing about third parties I don’t use pronouns if there’s any degree of ambiguity or or uncertainty, or if I disagree with that person* about gender or sexual identity.

    No, this is the only practical solution. It is not my job to recall the inner thoughts and identify of every person on this planet. I can only reasonably expect to known perhaps a few dozen people at a significantly personal level, and perhaps a couple hundred by name.

    Pronouns encode information that should be obvious without detailed knowledge, for example who is being referred to, singular vs. plural and gender. If one of these, for example gender is not obvious, then a pronoun is inappropriate because it will not serve it’s purpose.

    The deeper question is regulation of language by authoritarian design rather than by organic evolutionary emergence. Authoritarian design undercuts the natural feedback mechanisms that determine if a language change survives the test of fitness for purpose. Since authoritarian constructs cannot evolve, they can be killed by environmental changes.

    IMO, a passive resistance will be the most effective resistance to the authority. We are already seeing the asinine xhe dissapear.

  75. @Anon
    @Red Pill Angel


    Wittgenstein was Jewish, but raised as a Catholic, in a palatial home in Vienna.
     
    Wittgenstein’s mother was Gentile and his maternal grandmother was Gentile. Wittgenstein was not Jewish.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Red Pill Angel

    You are correct. I should have been more precise.

  76. @Colin Wright
    @JackOH

    'I gather the shoe has been on the other foot for some time. Instead of racism, homophobia, misogyny and what-not, we ought to be talking calmly about anti-White racism, heterophobia, misandry. Abetted, of course, by law, bovine popular opinion, and Big Business, the last of which sees advantage in dissolving traditionalist-conservative patterns of thought and behavior.'

    I think this is still missing the point.

    You're still seeking -- at least implicitly -- some sort of equitable solution.

    Nah, That's not how it works. They've started a war. You can lose, or you can win.

    Replies: @JackOH

    You’re right, of course, but I think for the smalltime dissenter, with neither muscle nor money in his favor, the better part of valor is to adopt a “naive/9th grade civics” attitude. Assume that a policy that sticks in your craw is a consequence of honest error or unintentional oversight, and that opinion leaders will welcome reasoned dissent.

    Maintaining that “naive” pose can be a real stressor when it becomes more and more clear our opinion leaders want reasoned dissenters to shut the fuck up, or channel their thoughts into controlled opposition: Dem and Repub factions, bureaucratized interest groups, etc.

    But, again, as a general rule, our overlords are okay with zero-sum politics that they try to portray as win-win.

  77. @Steve Sailer
    @El Dato

    National Review ran an article in the 1970s about Wittgenstein's eccentricities, which were remarkable.

    Replies: @slumber_j, @black sea

    Because of his subject’s personal weirdness, literally incredible life circumstances and peripatetic tendencies, Ray Monk’s Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius is the rare biography of an academic philosopher that you actually want to read all the way through. I recommend it highly.

    Anyway, I made reference to some of these Wittgensteinian concerns about language the other day in a comment on your post on whether species do or do not exist. With apologies for quoting myself, but I think this is relevant here too:

    Utility of expressions does lie at the heart of Wittgenstein’s work, and the very human tendency to confuse expression and referent is one of his biggest concerns and I think the more relevant one here. Whether species exist is a question that has a lot more to do with how we use the word than anything else: as ever, language is a social convention.

    Top-down insistence on telling us what words may or may not mean is necessarily nonsense. Until recently most Anglophones understood this at least implicitly, which is why (unlike the French or Spanish e.g.) we lack an Academy to dictate what words mean. We have the OED or whatever to point us in the right direction, but it’s not prescriptive. English Common Law is a legal analogue to this by the way, a fact I’ve never seen discussed, but probably I’m just ignorant.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @slumber_j

    "Utility of expression...." Yes, this is right.

    From my reading of Wittgenstein (fifty years ago) I recall that as a young man he sought to discover the absolute foundation and laws of language. Eventually, he became so immeshed in the impossibilities of the effort that he abandoned the project. Wittgenstein's Vienna (the title of a book) was also ground zero for Freudianism and was the intellectual center of gravity for the scientists who were making revolutionary strides in sub-atomic particle physics. Language was being called upon to do things for which it was not originally intended and to which it did not seem perfectly adapted.

    Over in England, Bertrand Russell was similarly inspired, but took a different tack, with his analytical approach in which he tried to build language upon a base unit of absolute unambiguous meaning that would be assembled by strict laws into ever more comprehensive phrases, sentences, paragraphs etc.

    All of this stuff failed. In Wittgenstein's later writings he spoke of language as being not a single thing, but the product of whatever group used it. So, for example, let's look at the following three expressions:

    "Hey! More mud up here."

    "Here's mud in your eye."

    "Break a leg."

    Now, the master mason who hollers at the apprentice who is mixing the mortar down below is not literally asking for the apprentice to throw mud at him. And if the apprentice took it that way, he would find out in short order that when we humans speak, we don't speak literally. No, what the master mason wants is "mud" of a very specific kind, having just the right consistency and made of just the right proportions of sand, cement and water. No ifs, ands or buts. "Or you'll be out on your butt!"

    When we toast a stranger in the Pub with "Mud in your eye", he would be very surprised if we actually flung mud at him. And we would likely go home with fewer teeth in our mouths if we literally did as we said.

    When we encourage a fellow actor to "Break a leg" we don't mean it literally, of course. It means, go for broke and knock 'em dead.

    "Knock em dead"!!!???

    You see? We can't get away from it. Language cannot be reduced to words of single clear, unequivocal meanings bound together by one set of rules. Words change meaning according to how they are used by different groups and in their particular context. There is no one set of rules by which we can decipher the derivative for the meaning for all of these words. If we were to try and prescribe one way or one meaning for a word, all the color would go out of our language. The richness, the texture would disappear.

    And because of the above, language is not just about the referent. It is about belonging to a group. The person who took any of the above literally would demonstrate that they were not members. They would suffer from autism or Asperger's (Steve's insight) and would probably be referred to the Human Resource department for review. So, using language in the locally conventional way is what makes us members of unique groups. And this is just what is under consideration in the present case. Trannies, people of ambiguous sexuality and their supporters are laying out the use of language for members of their group. If you don't abide, then you're not a member. At the same time, they show that they don't care to belong to your group.

  78. Mostly for the author:

    There’s a certain kind of argument that comes from the right, center-right or even from time to time from the center-left and the only effect that it has on me is to fill me with dismay.

    There’s two elements of the dismay. The first is the arrogance and bad faith of the side the argument is directed at, and the other is the unselfconscious naivety of the side making the argument.

    To draw an analogy that’s almost too blunt:

    It’s been noticed that people – lots of people – are dropping dead. Dying and dropping dead – this keeps happening. People shrug their shoulders, mourn and ask “how is this happening, why is this happening? Why are so many people suddenly dying?

    Then a small – piteously small – group, led by an articulate leader points out: “this thug – this thug and his gang, in plain sight of everyone, keeps gunning people down. That’s why people are dying!”

    This argument is incontrovertible, unassailable, it is as plain and true as plain and true can be.

    And then the thug proceeds to ignore the small piteous group, and in sight of everyone – guns some more people down.

    The piteous group licks their wounds – goes back to their editorial committees, pens some more articles, produces some more podcasts – and next time argues – harder.

    The thug and his gang – they don’t argue or answer the accusations. They – and everyone silently watchingcorrectly interpret the piteous speakers and noticers – as weak.

    That was always the point.

  79. @Mr. Blank

    ...nothing less than the legal sanctioning of a new priest class of magical people who speak all of reality into existence, and then the rest of society who must simply obey.
     
    That, of course, is the whole point of the exercise, whether the people insisting on it are consciously aware of it or not. It's a way for these people to indulge their will to power, backed up with the full might of the law.

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    That’s a really good point. Imagine being that mentally ill and confused. You’re not sure what’s wrong with you, you really want to be a boy or a girl but God made you what you physically are. Who do you rail against?

    Now these broken people finally have a feeling of some power within. “I can declare my gender and so be it! Fiat girl! or Fiat boy!”

    Ye shall be as gods, I guess. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that you are, indeed, the opposite sex.

  80. @Anon
    @Anon

    I saw a Twitter account today from a female anthro Ph.D. with preferred pronouns of "she/they." Huh? Which is it? Either? You don't care which?

    How do you get out of high school and through a Ph.D. program without learning English grammar?

    Possible preferred pronouns are:

    -- she/her or she/her/herself

    -- they/them or they/them/their/theirs/themself

    The idea is you choose a gender, he, she, or they, and then you decline out as much as you want from there; usually a single extra declension is enough to show the pattern. I think just saying he, she, or they is enough. In the beginning of this madness the idea was that people would choose made-up pronouns, but even the woke decided that was going too far. In that case you'd need the whole declension: xhe/xhem/xher/xhers/xhemsylf.

    Replies: @Badger Down, @Harry Baldwin, @Chrisnonymous

    I saw a Twitter account today from a female anthro Ph.D. with preferred pronouns of “she/they.”

    Perhaps she’s making a mockery of the whole thing. (We can hope.)

  81. @International Jew
    @Anon

    Taking umbrage on behalf of third persons is what it's all about. Same as when one white person corrects another white person over saying Eskimo or Hottentot.

    As for you, of course that's trouble-free in English since there's only one term for it. Certain other languages offer more opportunities for the language police. Hebrew does have masculine and feminine forms for you. In Russian, past tense verbs are gendered and so are all adjectives. In Hebrew (and Arabic actually), practically everything is gendered — adjectives, verbs in first second and third person in all tenses, adjectives, and of course the (two) words for you. Fortunately, wokeness hasn't gained much traction in either Russia or Israel.

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    Is this the problem with English? No gender to our grammar? Where the heck did that come from anyway? Why does language need gender?

    That was four questions. I’d appreciate four succinct answers, thank you. No more, no less.

    • LOL: Cortes
  82. @Anon
    @Anon

    I saw a Twitter account today from a female anthro Ph.D. with preferred pronouns of "she/they." Huh? Which is it? Either? You don't care which?

    How do you get out of high school and through a Ph.D. program without learning English grammar?

    Possible preferred pronouns are:

    -- she/her or she/her/herself

    -- they/them or they/them/their/theirs/themself

    The idea is you choose a gender, he, she, or they, and then you decline out as much as you want from there; usually a single extra declension is enough to show the pattern. I think just saying he, she, or they is enough. In the beginning of this madness the idea was that people would choose made-up pronouns, but even the woke decided that was going too far. In that case you'd need the whole declension: xhe/xhem/xher/xhers/xhemsylf.

    Replies: @Badger Down, @Harry Baldwin, @Chrisnonymous

    Why are you forcing her into the binary of using/not-using, choosing/not-choosing, having/not-having? Obviously, she is free! Free from people, but free to make demands on people! Wittgenstein was an oppressor!

  83. @Steve Sailer
    @El Dato

    National Review ran an article in the 1970s about Wittgenstein's eccentricities, which were remarkable.

    Replies: @slumber_j, @black sea

    The Austrian writer Thomas Bernhard wrote a memoir/novel about his friendship with Wittgenstein’s nephew. As Bernhard describes it, he ultimately succumbed to the periodic bouts of mental illness which afflicted him. Bernhard, no beacon of happiness himself, renders this progression in unsparing detail. Well worth the time, if you’re feeling overly chipper.

    Quotation below:

    “Seen from across the street, he was like someone to whom the world had long since given notice to quit but who was compelled to stay in it, no longer belonging to it, but unable to leave it.”
    ― Thomas Bernhard, Wittgenstein’s Nephew

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @black sea

    I love (love) two books by Thomas Bernhard (and one play: Histrionics ) Wittgenstein's Nephew and The Cheap Eaters.

  84. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato
    @Anon

    Why not look for love in unexpected places instead?

    It beggars belief that a trans YouTube star, arrested for allegedly raping his own mother, will be jailed with women inmates


    Police in Virginia have classified Chris Chan, 39, as female because he says he’s a trans woman, but he is biologically male and has allegedly admitted to raping his mother, 79, who suffers from dementia. We live in a sick world.
     
    Silence is Violence.
    Sickness is Progress.
    Rolling immigro-trucks are pension security.
    Bronze Age Pervert has been banned from Twitter.
    PayPal gives your purchasing history to the ADL.
    Embrace the dieversity!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anon

    If they ever remake Silence of the Lambs would Hannibal Lecter be played as a Tranny?
    And presumably be locked up in a women’s prison?

  85. @Dieter Kief

    such false “rights” claims actually amount to severe rights violations of the vast majority of everyday language-users and citizens and cause irreparable damage to the set of shared social and linguistic practices necessary for coordinating the basic public goods of a free, flourishing, and truth-preserving society.

    The social and political consequence of allowing such false rights claims to swell unopposed to the level of positive rights claims, eventually codifying into actual state-compelled law (as is already the case with Canada’s Bill C-16 and soon to be with America’s Equality Act) will be nothing less than the legal sanctioning of a new priest class of magical people who speak all of reality into existence, and then the rest of society who must simply obey.

     

    1) These are precise remarks about language.

    2) Language is a collective accomplishment and a good example for a common good.

    3) The misuse of it thus being a good example of the tragedy of the commons.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    1) These are precise remarks about language.

    2) Language is a collective accomplishment and a good example for a common good.

    3) The misuse of it thus being a good example of the tragedy of the commons.

    Karl Kraus famously espoused the idea that precision in language is indispensable and imprecision heralds the fall of civilization “denn hätten die Leute, die dazu verpflichtet sind, immer darauf geachtet, daß die Beistriche am richtigen Platz stehen, so würde Shanghai nicht brennen.“ = ” for if those charged to look after commas had always ensured they were in the right place, Shanghai would not be burning’. (That was written during the 1932 bombardment of Shanghai by the Japanese.)

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @kaganovitch

    There is a junction - a CROSSROADS - where Karl Kraus met Mephisto and decided to close his eyes and concentrate on perfect sentences. He wrote tens of thousands (!) of pages over the years. So yes, his strategy made sense for him, because his life was writing and reading (reading to a crowd of (hundreds at times) of listeners too, he was a veritable star in Vienna) and not much else, from a certain point on.
    Thus he became ever more specialized and - blinded by the sheer number of words he digested and - - -wrote down. This led many of his admirers astray and - they even turned against him: The philosophical enemies Bloch and Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Elias Canetti - - -

    The one US-admirer of Kraus who even wrote a little book about his Kraus-passion is Jonathan Franzen and - - - - let me express the Kraus - phenomenon from a slightly different angle before I come back to Franzen: Kraus loathed one of the most playful and charming writers of German - the great essayist (and witty if a bit loose poet) Heinrich Heine. Now - Franzen turned against Heine with Kraus. - That is a mistake that - in the light of hindsight - can only be made by - - - what we in southern Germany call - - - a rhino.


    Long story short: Kraus does not understand the deeply social nature of (any) language and thus misunderstands it as a physical apparatus. - If language was indeed a physical apparatus, Kraus (and the rhino Franzen) would be right. Since language is a social thing altogehter, Heinrich Heine is on the battlefield and - - - - all his posthumous enemies - - - are annihilated by Heine's playful genius - and his transcendental - - - laughter. - - - -

    PS
    This machine, a sticker on Woody Guthrie's guitar read for some time in the same spirit: kills fascists - - - - -

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  86. @black sea
    @Steve Sailer

    The Austrian writer Thomas Bernhard wrote a memoir/novel about his friendship with Wittgenstein's nephew. As Bernhard describes it, he ultimately succumbed to the periodic bouts of mental illness which afflicted him. Bernhard, no beacon of happiness himself, renders this progression in unsparing detail. Well worth the time, if you're feeling overly chipper.

    Quotation below:


    “Seen from across the street, he was like someone to whom the world had long since given notice to quit but who was compelled to stay in it, no longer belonging to it, but unable to leave it.”
    ― Thomas Bernhard, Wittgenstein's Nephew
     

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I love (love) two books by Thomas Bernhard (and one play: Histrionics ) Wittgenstein’s Nephew and The Cheap Eaters.

  87. @Anon
    @Abolish_public_education

    Why are the preferred pronouns in the third person? Seems that the most important pronoun is second person - you. How can anyone correct your use of third person pronouns if you’re not talking to him? (See what I did there?)

    Replies: @Herp McDerp, @International Jew, @Anon, @VivaLaMigra

    Yes, I see. The pronouns “he/him/his” have ALWAYS been the accepted, and indeed preferrred, ones when the speaker is referring to an individual unknown, or hypothetical. The use of “they” and its objective and possessive forms is non grammatical when used to refer to just ONE person. In this context, “he” is not sexist, anymore than “they” is sexist when used for a group of people. In fact, the word “they” is the relative pronoun used for multiple OBJECTS, not just people; ie. it’s the plural of “it” as well as “he” or “she.” Use of an accepted SINGULAR pronoun aids clear speaking and comprehension. English uses the “masculine” form of the singular third person pronoun in this context, and it’s not unique in that usage. It’s illustrative that English speakers are now attempting to change OTHER languages, which is not their place or their right. The most obvious example is the attempted forcing of the made-up Spanish word “Latinx” in place of “Latino” for a mixed-gender group of “Hispanic” [itself a made-up term] people. Spanish speakers are actually outraged over this, and they’re right to be. They consider their native language part of their culture. We English [ok, AMERICAN English] speakers should do the same, and defend our grammatical rules.

  88. @Triteleia Laxa
    The arguments in the article are excellent, but taking away an alcoholic's booze doesn't help, you have to, at least, give them a suitable alternative that meets their needs just as well.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    No, you need to take away his booze. It’s his responsibility to function without it, something the vast majority do.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    The "vast majority" have their own particular type of booze, as do you.

    "Responsibility" is a useful concept, until someone can't bare it, when it is shattered into mere moral carping.

    You want people to change? You're going to need to offer them more understanding than they offer themselves, not defensive judgementalism, even if the latter can be a fun way to vent!

    Whether these observations are "good", "bad", "fair", "rational", "logical", "moral" or not, they are true. Make do with them what you want.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  89. It is interesting to me that “preferred pronouns” are third-person. Thus the party with the preferred pronoun is not demanding how people talk to them, but demanding how third persons talk about them.

  90. @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    No, you need to take away his booze. It's his responsibility to function without it, something the vast majority do.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    The “vast majority” have their own particular type of booze, as do you.

    “Responsibility” is a useful concept, until someone can’t bare it, when it is shattered into mere moral carping.

    You want people to change? You’re going to need to offer them more understanding than they offer themselves, not defensive judgementalism, even if the latter can be a fun way to vent!

    Whether these observations are “good”, “bad”, “fair”, “rational”, “logical”, “moral” or not, they are true. Make do with them what you want.

    • Agree: El Dato
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    You want people to change? You’re going to need to offer them more understanding than they offer themselves, not defensive judgementalism, even if the latter can be a fun way to vent!

    You're likely to fail no matter what you do. No, 'understanding' won't help you or them. If they feel pain, it might help or it might not.

    Years ago, I had a conversation with a social worker whose job it was to attempt to straighten out alcoholics. He tells me he has two allies in his job: 'banks, and the criminal justice system. Banks - they don't care about your problems, they just want their money. And the criminal justice system, for all its problems, has one virtue. Once it gets you in its maw, it just keeps coming after you and after you until it is DONE with you". His view was his clients live every day in a fog of lies they tell themselves and these are two forces bringing them back to reality.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  91. @Dumbo
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    No need to overthink it. Deep down, even transgenders know that they are not "real women". Or they wouldn't be called "trans"-genders. It's all about forcing anomalies and cognitive dissonance on others. The same cognitive dissonance they likely feel. Like with hot dogs, someone who has or had a "sausage" at birth, is not a "woman". They may identify as they wish but that won't change biology.

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra

    “They [sic] may identify as they [sic] wish but that won’t change biology.”

    Um, you just fell into theSnowflakes’ trap of using “they” to refer to a single individual, and one with a “sausage” to boot; ie. a male. So, the proper construction of your final sentence would be “He may identify as he wishes but that won’t change biology.” Note that the antecedent of the pronoun in the final sentence is “someone” from the phrase in the preceding sentence “someone who has or had a ‘sausage’ at birth….” In that sentence, you have ONE person, ie. “someone.” You have him [see what I did there?] paired with a singular “sausage” at the time of his birth. These pronouns which clarify the GENDER of the hypothetical person in question make the whole construction more precise. We don’t know the exact individual to whom we’re referrring, but we DO know he was born with a penis and is therefore male.

  92. Teacher of mathematics: “Suppose that x is the number of sheep in the pen”.

    Student of Wittgenstein: “Suppose that x is not the number of sheep.”

  93. @Anonymous
    @Simon

    This is a reasonable argument, and I'm sure many decent and intelligent people would find it convincing.
    But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives his or her lunacy as aligned with the moral flow of history. And yet what the confused person perceives as freedom and moral progress is growing totalitarianism and evil.
    I think what is required in our times is immediate rebuke.
    You are being asked to lie.
    And you are being asked to lie in a way that directly and indirectly fosters deep moral evil.
    Anyone concerned about how others perceive their gender is salvageable.
    They don't fully believe absolute nonsense.
    You are harming them by accomodating them.
    But of course, we have to choose our battles, and the "bigger" moral problem is that you are harming others.
    You are harming clueless young men and women who might feel the attraction of the nonsense as a way of validating their existence in a world that increasingly hides meaning from most.
    And you are harming more sane men and women who nonetheless might not fully internally perceive manhood or womanhood as intrinsic to who they are, and so might waver in trying to become the best man or woman possible.

    DO NOT TELL ME TO LIE.
    You might lose your job or "friends", but you will become stronger.

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra, @njguy73

    But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives his or her [[sic] lunacy

    May I suggest that a far more fluent construction would be: ” But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives one’s lunacy….” The use of the indefinite pronoun “one” eliminates the very clumsy, and utterly unnecessary, “his or her.” The use of the pronoun “his” in this context has been accepted, and grammatically correct, for centuries. We don’t know the specific gender of this hypothetical person, but we do know we’re discussing ONE person and the singular pronoun “his” suffices. CONTEXT matters in language. Any literate speaker of English is taught to accept that “his” isn’t gender specific in this usage; it’s the singular form that’s significant to the meaning of the phrase.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    @VivaLaMigra


    The use of the indefinite pronoun “one” eliminates the ... unnecessary, “his or her.”
     
    NO. It is not at all clear - particularly in this context - that the writer meant to blend the meanings of "his" and "her" into a collective term, and one occurrence of "or her" is hardly "clumsy."

    More seriously, "one's" introduces an avoidable ambiguity in that "one" is also used as a euphemism for "I." "One's lunacy" could thus refer to the lunacy of the listener. Readers would have to resort to contextual clues to resolve the ambiguity - precisely what clear writing should avoid.

    Feminists and many others misunderstand the grammatical gender system in English. "She/her/hers" is used exclusively to refer to a female, in the singular only. "He/him/his" similarly refers exclusively to a male, again in the singular only. English does not have a plural pronoun to refers to a group of males only, or of females only.

  94. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    If it didn't have such catastrophic consequences, the whole thing would remind me of the old philosophy joke about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not. There's a funny cartoon about two philosophers sitting in front of a hot dog, arguing about whether it's a sandwich. Wittgenstein walks into the room, and one of them asks, "Wittgenstein, will you please hand me that sandwich?" To which Wittgenstein replies, "Certainly."

    The assertion being that language is determined by usage, not by intrinsic meaning, or even necessarily by common convention.

    Personally I think such arguments fail (or don't really fail, simply are not relevant) because they are divorced from anthropology: human beings are predators, and predators have parts of their brains which operate by recognizing profiles. A lion hunts a gazelle because it fits the lion's profile: you don't see a lion attacking a tree. A hot dog is a piece of meat between two pieces of bread, so technically it is a sandwich, but it just doesn't LOOK like a sandwich, and we can't say why.

    This is one of the problems of the whole transgender issue. Human beings have separate profiles for men and women which are a biological fact of their brains, and you cannot wish it away just by hectoring people enough. When a typical human sees an individual who fits the "male" profile claiming to fit the "female" profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress. Trans people seem to think only of their own interests, and not the discomfort they cause their fellow human beings: they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @res, @Forbes, @Triteleia Laxa

    they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.

    Pretty much an encapsulation of The Current Year.

  95. @Abolish_public_education
    Don’t indulge the idiots.

    When someone corrects you about use of their preferred pronouns, just tell them to shut up.

    Replies: @Yawrate, @Mr. Blank, @Desiderius, @Anon, @notbe, @El Dato, @Forbes

    Isn’t the answer to just use their name–and skip the pronoun nonsense.

  96. Never read Wittgenstein, but this is perfect. Not just about philosophy either, but everything.

    According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice: where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language, all philosophical problems can be solved without the muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, precisely because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no work at all. Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the “rough ground” of ordinary language in use. Much of the Investigations consists of examples of how the first false steps can be avoided, so that philosophical problems are dissolved, rather than solved: “The clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear.”

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Triteleia Laxa

    This is even found in Mathematics:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

    and the tension between classical logic (a bizarre idealistic constraction admitting to dubious procedures like proof by contradiction) and constructive logic ("show me a concrete structure before I believe your proof")

  97. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    If it didn't have such catastrophic consequences, the whole thing would remind me of the old philosophy joke about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not. There's a funny cartoon about two philosophers sitting in front of a hot dog, arguing about whether it's a sandwich. Wittgenstein walks into the room, and one of them asks, "Wittgenstein, will you please hand me that sandwich?" To which Wittgenstein replies, "Certainly."

    The assertion being that language is determined by usage, not by intrinsic meaning, or even necessarily by common convention.

    Personally I think such arguments fail (or don't really fail, simply are not relevant) because they are divorced from anthropology: human beings are predators, and predators have parts of their brains which operate by recognizing profiles. A lion hunts a gazelle because it fits the lion's profile: you don't see a lion attacking a tree. A hot dog is a piece of meat between two pieces of bread, so technically it is a sandwich, but it just doesn't LOOK like a sandwich, and we can't say why.

    This is one of the problems of the whole transgender issue. Human beings have separate profiles for men and women which are a biological fact of their brains, and you cannot wish it away just by hectoring people enough. When a typical human sees an individual who fits the "male" profile claiming to fit the "female" profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress. Trans people seem to think only of their own interests, and not the discomfort they cause their fellow human beings: they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @res, @Forbes, @Triteleia Laxa

    When a typical human sees an individual who fits the “male” profile claiming to fit the “female” profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress.

    No cognitive dissonance here–it causes me to see and think, “freak.” Possibly, “insane freak.” And more than likely, “insane, in need of mental health help or therapy.”

    The ‘trans’ are seriously troubled people who are not helped by our participation in their charade of self-deception.

  98. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    If it didn't have such catastrophic consequences, the whole thing would remind me of the old philosophy joke about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not. There's a funny cartoon about two philosophers sitting in front of a hot dog, arguing about whether it's a sandwich. Wittgenstein walks into the room, and one of them asks, "Wittgenstein, will you please hand me that sandwich?" To which Wittgenstein replies, "Certainly."

    The assertion being that language is determined by usage, not by intrinsic meaning, or even necessarily by common convention.

    Personally I think such arguments fail (or don't really fail, simply are not relevant) because they are divorced from anthropology: human beings are predators, and predators have parts of their brains which operate by recognizing profiles. A lion hunts a gazelle because it fits the lion's profile: you don't see a lion attacking a tree. A hot dog is a piece of meat between two pieces of bread, so technically it is a sandwich, but it just doesn't LOOK like a sandwich, and we can't say why.

    This is one of the problems of the whole transgender issue. Human beings have separate profiles for men and women which are a biological fact of their brains, and you cannot wish it away just by hectoring people enough. When a typical human sees an individual who fits the "male" profile claiming to fit the "female" profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress. Trans people seem to think only of their own interests, and not the discomfort they cause their fellow human beings: they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @res, @Forbes, @Triteleia Laxa

    This is one of the problems of the whole transgender issue. Human beings have separate profiles for men and women which are a biological fact of their brains, and you cannot wish it away just by hectoring people enough. When a typical human sees an individual who fits the “male” profile claiming to fit the “female” profile, it causes cognitive dissonance and distress. Trans people seem to think only of their own interests, and not the discomfort they cause their fellow human beings: they are all about rights, and no responsibilities.

    So close, but then you hid the realisation behind abstractions.

    Yes, seeing other people in pain does hurt. This makes it yours, in fact. How do you acknowledge this?

  99. @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    1) These are precise remarks about language.

    2) Language is a collective accomplishment and a good example for a common good.

    3) The misuse of it thus being a good example of the tragedy of the commons.

    Karl Kraus famously espoused the idea that precision in language is indispensable and imprecision heralds the fall of civilization "denn hätten die Leute, die dazu verpflichtet sind, immer darauf geachtet, daß die Beistriche am richtigen Platz stehen, so würde Shanghai nicht brennen.“ = " for if those charged to look after commas had always ensured they were in the right place, Shanghai would not be burning'. (That was written during the 1932 bombardment of Shanghai by the Japanese.)

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    There is a junction – a CROSSROADS – where Karl Kraus met Mephisto and decided to close his eyes and concentrate on perfect sentences. He wrote tens of thousands (!) of pages over the years. So yes, his strategy made sense for him, because his life was writing and reading (reading to a crowd of (hundreds at times) of listeners too, he was a veritable star in Vienna) and not much else, from a certain point on.
    Thus he became ever more specialized and – blinded by the sheer number of words he digested and – – -wrote down. This led many of his admirers astray and – they even turned against him: The philosophical enemies Bloch and Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Elias Canetti – – –

    The one US-admirer of Kraus who even wrote a little book about his Kraus-passion is Jonathan Franzen and – – – – let me express the Kraus – phenomenon from a slightly different angle before I come back to Franzen: Kraus loathed one of the most playful and charming writers of German – the great essayist (and witty if a bit loose poet) Heinrich Heine. Now – Franzen turned against Heine with Kraus. – That is a mistake that – in the light of hindsight – can only be made by – – – what we in southern Germany call – – – a rhino.

    Long story short: Kraus does not understand the deeply social nature of (any) language and thus misunderstands it as a physical apparatus. – If language was indeed a physical apparatus, Kraus (and the rhino Franzen) would be right. Since language is a social thing altogehter, Heinrich Heine is on the battlefield and – – – – all his posthumous enemies – – – are annihilated by Heine’s playful genius – and his transcendental – – – laughter. – – – –

    PS
    This machine, a sticker on Woody Guthrie’s guitar read for some time in the same spirit: kills fascists – – – – –

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    Long story short: Kraus does not understand the deeply social nature of (any) language and thus misunderstands it as a physical apparatus. – If language was indeed a physical apparatus, Kraus (and the rhino Franzen) would be right. Since language is a social thing altogehter, Heinrich Heine is on the battlefield and – – – – all his posthumous enemies – – – are annihilated by Heine’s playful genius – and his transcendental – – – laughter. – – – –

    Very well put. It is indeed striking in reading Kraus, how Platonist/Berkelyean his conception of language is. That said, I enjoy reading polemics and he was a truly talented polemicist. Absolutely gifted at pure poison.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  100. @Triteleia Laxa
    Never read Wittgenstein, but this is perfect. Not just about philosophy either, but everything.

    According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice: where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language, all philosophical problems can be solved without the muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, precisely because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no work at all. Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the "rough ground" of ordinary language in use. Much of the Investigations consists of examples of how the first false steps can be avoided, so that philosophical problems are dissolved, rather than solved: "The clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear."

    Replies: @El Dato

    This is even found in Mathematics:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

    and the tension between classical logic (a bizarre idealistic constraction admitting to dubious procedures like proof by contradiction) and constructive logic (“show me a concrete structure before I believe your proof”)

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
  101. Anon[406] • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato
    @Anon

    Why not look for love in unexpected places instead?

    It beggars belief that a trans YouTube star, arrested for allegedly raping his own mother, will be jailed with women inmates


    Police in Virginia have classified Chris Chan, 39, as female because he says he’s a trans woman, but he is biologically male and has allegedly admitted to raping his mother, 79, who suffers from dementia. We live in a sick world.
     
    Silence is Violence.
    Sickness is Progress.
    Rolling immigro-trucks are pension security.
    Bronze Age Pervert has been banned from Twitter.
    PayPal gives your purchasing history to the ADL.
    Embrace the dieversity!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anon

    It beggars belief that a trans YouTube star, arrested for allegedly raping his own mother, will be jailed with women inmates

    Female convicts don’t need you to look out for them. They have—or will have—plenty of support from elsewhere.

    You are needed at the border.

    Bronze Age Pervert has been banned from Twitter.
    PayPal gives your purchasing history to the ADL.
    Embrace the dieversity!

    One of BAP’s last tweets before he was banned permanently advocated for a singular focus on immigration and repatriation.

  102. Wittgenstein says we can’t have a private language because whatever seems correct will be correct, since no-one will be able to correct our incorrect application of a term. But what about if there were two people, or a community of people? Isn’t it possible that they might all misremember? The difference appears to me to be one of degree and not of kind.

    Wittgenstein might be thinking of a theory of language that identifies meanings with inner mental states, “lion” means our image of a lion, and so on. If so its a straw man since no philosopher who took the problem of the nature of meaning seriously argued for that.

  103. @Dieter Kief
    @kaganovitch

    There is a junction - a CROSSROADS - where Karl Kraus met Mephisto and decided to close his eyes and concentrate on perfect sentences. He wrote tens of thousands (!) of pages over the years. So yes, his strategy made sense for him, because his life was writing and reading (reading to a crowd of (hundreds at times) of listeners too, he was a veritable star in Vienna) and not much else, from a certain point on.
    Thus he became ever more specialized and - blinded by the sheer number of words he digested and - - -wrote down. This led many of his admirers astray and - they even turned against him: The philosophical enemies Bloch and Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Elias Canetti - - -

    The one US-admirer of Kraus who even wrote a little book about his Kraus-passion is Jonathan Franzen and - - - - let me express the Kraus - phenomenon from a slightly different angle before I come back to Franzen: Kraus loathed one of the most playful and charming writers of German - the great essayist (and witty if a bit loose poet) Heinrich Heine. Now - Franzen turned against Heine with Kraus. - That is a mistake that - in the light of hindsight - can only be made by - - - what we in southern Germany call - - - a rhino.


    Long story short: Kraus does not understand the deeply social nature of (any) language and thus misunderstands it as a physical apparatus. - If language was indeed a physical apparatus, Kraus (and the rhino Franzen) would be right. Since language is a social thing altogehter, Heinrich Heine is on the battlefield and - - - - all his posthumous enemies - - - are annihilated by Heine's playful genius - and his transcendental - - - laughter. - - - -

    PS
    This machine, a sticker on Woody Guthrie's guitar read for some time in the same spirit: kills fascists - - - - -

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Long story short: Kraus does not understand the deeply social nature of (any) language and thus misunderstands it as a physical apparatus. – If language was indeed a physical apparatus, Kraus (and the rhino Franzen) would be right. Since language is a social thing altogehter, Heinrich Heine is on the battlefield and – – – – all his posthumous enemies – – – are annihilated by Heine’s playful genius – and his transcendental – – – laughter. – – – –

    Very well put. It is indeed striking in reading Kraus, how Platonist/Berkelyean his conception of language is. That said, I enjoy reading polemics and he was a truly talented polemicist. Absolutely gifted at pure poison.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @kaganovitch


    (Karl Kraus was) Absolutely gifted at pure poison.
     
    Right. Sigh. But it does get a bit boring over time if somebody just hammers out his own bitter truths and nothing but. - Over time meaning over decades. It is just no - easy, let's say - way to - get old and stay productive.

    Hans Magnus Enzensberger - who very elegantly circumvented the cliff of just proving to everybody that he can - time and time again - look down on them, dwarf them, annihilate them . . . found out in 1975 ff. that there is something completely wrong with this attitude of him and his - angry comrades... - - - and he then very elegantly shifted gears and became a more distant and - joyful even - writer (while remaining a critic - but not throughout).
    When he finally passed seventy, he put that experience in this formula: Der Zorn altert, die Ironie bleibt. - Rage gets older (altert is double-coded in German, because it means not only older but has also an overtone of being left behind by him - - - while he is getting older****) - whereas irony lasts.

    ***** an interesting paradox, methinks: Getting older allowed the once rebellious man to understand that now that he is old - rage has gotten outdated for him. While getting old you are able to let rage behind - it is all of a sudden older than yourself. Paradoxical and funny: A parallel movement on different scales which lets getting old appear as existential progress and - gain.


    PS

    In praising the cosmic mind and sky-high genius - novelist, philosopher, pedagogue, aphorist & humorist Jean Paul, Karl Kraus was on the track out of his limitations. But his praise might have been a bit shallow. Or his urge to act in a rather raging and poisonous way was just too strong to be tuned down, let alone be released.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  104. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    The "vast majority" have their own particular type of booze, as do you.

    "Responsibility" is a useful concept, until someone can't bare it, when it is shattered into mere moral carping.

    You want people to change? You're going to need to offer them more understanding than they offer themselves, not defensive judgementalism, even if the latter can be a fun way to vent!

    Whether these observations are "good", "bad", "fair", "rational", "logical", "moral" or not, they are true. Make do with them what you want.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    You want people to change? You’re going to need to offer them more understanding than they offer themselves, not defensive judgementalism, even if the latter can be a fun way to vent!

    You’re likely to fail no matter what you do. No, ‘understanding’ won’t help you or them. If they feel pain, it might help or it might not.

    Years ago, I had a conversation with a social worker whose job it was to attempt to straighten out alcoholics. He tells me he has two allies in his job: ‘banks, and the criminal justice system. Banks – they don’t care about your problems, they just want their money. And the criminal justice system, for all its problems, has one virtue. Once it gets you in its maw, it just keeps coming after you and after you until it is DONE with you”. His view was his clients live every day in a fog of lies they tell themselves and these are two forces bringing them back to reality.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    While people can decide and learn to decrease the suffering they cause themselves, if you cause them to suffer even more, that has very limited use.

    Otherwise, sorry for the bluntness, but I know that what I am saying is true, even if it is far from always effective, and I, therefore, assume that both you and the social worker just never managed to patiently understand others better than they understood themselves and never managed to use that to kindly introduce them to what they were missing, thereby filling the hole with awareness, instead of their usual coping mechanism of alcohol, gender ideology etc.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  105. @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    You want people to change? You’re going to need to offer them more understanding than they offer themselves, not defensive judgementalism, even if the latter can be a fun way to vent!

    You're likely to fail no matter what you do. No, 'understanding' won't help you or them. If they feel pain, it might help or it might not.

    Years ago, I had a conversation with a social worker whose job it was to attempt to straighten out alcoholics. He tells me he has two allies in his job: 'banks, and the criminal justice system. Banks - they don't care about your problems, they just want their money. And the criminal justice system, for all its problems, has one virtue. Once it gets you in its maw, it just keeps coming after you and after you until it is DONE with you". His view was his clients live every day in a fog of lies they tell themselves and these are two forces bringing them back to reality.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    While people can decide and learn to decrease the suffering they cause themselves, if you cause them to suffer even more, that has very limited use.

    Otherwise, sorry for the bluntness, but I know that what I am saying is true, even if it is far from always effective, and I, therefore, assume that both you and the social worker just never managed to patiently understand others better than they understood themselves and never managed to use that to kindly introduce them to what they were missing, thereby filling the hole with awareness, instead of their usual coping mechanism of alcohol, gender ideology etc.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    if you cause them to suffer even more, that has very limited use.

    It's the only thing of much use.


    Otherwise, sorry for the bluntness, but I know that what I am saying is true,

    What you are saying is false.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  106. @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    Long story short: Kraus does not understand the deeply social nature of (any) language and thus misunderstands it as a physical apparatus. – If language was indeed a physical apparatus, Kraus (and the rhino Franzen) would be right. Since language is a social thing altogehter, Heinrich Heine is on the battlefield and – – – – all his posthumous enemies – – – are annihilated by Heine’s playful genius – and his transcendental – – – laughter. – – – –

    Very well put. It is indeed striking in reading Kraus, how Platonist/Berkelyean his conception of language is. That said, I enjoy reading polemics and he was a truly talented polemicist. Absolutely gifted at pure poison.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    (Karl Kraus was) Absolutely gifted at pure poison.

    Right. Sigh. But it does get a bit boring over time if somebody just hammers out his own bitter truths and nothing but. – Over time meaning over decades. It is just no – easy, let’s say – way to – get old and stay productive.

    Hans Magnus Enzensberger – who very elegantly circumvented the cliff of just proving to everybody that he can – time and time again – look down on them, dwarf them, annihilate them . . . found out in 1975 ff. that there is something completely wrong with this attitude of him and his – angry comrades… – – – and he then very elegantly shifted gears and became a more distant and – joyful even – writer (while remaining a critic – but not throughout).
    When he finally passed seventy, he put that experience in this formula: Der Zorn altert, die Ironie bleibt. – Rage gets older (altert is double-coded in German, because it means not only older but has also an overtone of being left behind by him – – – while he is getting older****) – whereas irony lasts.

    ***** an interesting paradox, methinks: Getting older allowed the once rebellious man to understand that now that he is old – rage has gotten outdated for him. While getting old you are able to let rage behind – it is all of a sudden older than yourself. Paradoxical and funny: A parallel movement on different scales which lets getting old appear as existential progress and – gain.

    PS

    In praising the cosmic mind and sky-high genius – novelist, philosopher, pedagogue, aphorist & humorist Jean Paul, Karl Kraus was on the track out of his limitations. But his praise might have been a bit shallow. Or his urge to act in a rather raging and poisonous way was just too strong to be tuned down, let alone be released.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    Right. Sigh. But it does get a bit boring over time if somebody just hammers out his own bitter truths and nothing but.

    As my German is somewhat limited and rusty I only read small doses of Kraus which is tolerable. I remember my late father obm - whose hardbound copies of die Fackel I inherited - when reading certain of Kraus's articles used to say "Dieser kerl wahr einer miese säge,aber hatte er Sprachgefühl !"

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  107. @Mr. Blank
    @Abolish_public_education

    If only it were that simple. I nearly lost my job for refusing to defer to another person's preferred pronouns. I probably would have lost it if I hadn't been able to play the "tragically ill wife" card. It felt dirty to resort to that, but then again, I was about to lose my job over pronouns.

    Replies: @JackOH, @Hangnail Hans, @tyrone, @Stan d Mute

    One would hope that since the episode you have decreased your work output and quality to that of the average affirmative action HR or DIE worker while spending every available moment looking for the exit.

    If not, we can only conclude that you like it.

    The time is now about 30 years overdue for the general strike of all white men who actually produce stuff (power, water, sanitation, food, durable goods, etc). All of the parasitic FIRE class can of course keep working since they contribute little to nothing of value anyway.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    @Stan d Mute

    Stan, if very able political leadership could be found, I could support a "silent strike" of, say, disgruntled white collar folks, skilled tradesmen, and pretty much anyone else with a beef. You'd need a real expert, and master of rhetorical discipline, and the capability of following through.

    A Web site with a simple message encouraging workers to "silently" take a particular day off might be a start. You'd need to do plenty of homework, but, if I'm not mistaken, those Occupy Wall Street protests, which turned out not to have legs, began with a magazine article.

  108. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    While people can decide and learn to decrease the suffering they cause themselves, if you cause them to suffer even more, that has very limited use.

    Otherwise, sorry for the bluntness, but I know that what I am saying is true, even if it is far from always effective, and I, therefore, assume that both you and the social worker just never managed to patiently understand others better than they understood themselves and never managed to use that to kindly introduce them to what they were missing, thereby filling the hole with awareness, instead of their usual coping mechanism of alcohol, gender ideology etc.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    if you cause them to suffer even more, that has very limited use.

    It’s the only thing of much use.

    Otherwise, sorry for the bluntness, but I know that what I am saying is true,

    What you are saying is false.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    Your philosophy of "helping" is indistinguishable from an excuse for you to enjoy sadism against people you don't identify with.

    If you ever wonder why some people see you in a darker light than you see yourself, this should be a big clue.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Art Deco

  109. @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    if you cause them to suffer even more, that has very limited use.

    It's the only thing of much use.


    Otherwise, sorry for the bluntness, but I know that what I am saying is true,

    What you are saying is false.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Your philosophy of “helping” is indistinguishable from an excuse for you to enjoy sadism against people you don’t identify with.

    If you ever wonder why some people see you in a darker light than you see yourself, this should be a big clue.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Triteleia Laxa

    You're saying the 99.5% of us should "help" the 0.5% who are trying to destroy us?

    What is wrong with you?

    The analogy to drunks is stupid, but in any case, no one ever said that their habit helps them or anyone. A lot of writers were lushes but that was a tragic cross to bear, and in any case, no one pretended that this was good for them or society.

    The transgender ideology is pure & simple madness. It must be crushed and pounded out of existence.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Your philosophy of “helping” is indistinguishable from an excuse for you to enjoy sadism against people you don’t identify with.

    Thanks for your wisdom, emo kid. I can feel the love.

    What it actually is is a preference for letting nature take its course and instruct the misbehaving subject so he stops misbehaving. Nature taking its course means he is put out if he doesn't respect the rules in his father's house or on his landlord's property, fired from his job if he's an unreliable or troublesome employee, has to pay his debts or face the repo man if he does not, and he goes to jail if he commits crimes. It assumes personal agency. If that's 'sadism', then your father's rules, your landlords rules, your employers rules, financial obligation, and the penal code are all 'sadistic'. I don't doubt there are people on the Minneapolis city council who think this way; that's why they shouldn't be permitted any discretion in this world in which we live.

    Of course, the foregoing is anathema to people who make their living in the helping professions (the social worker I mentioned being an odd exception).

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  110. @Stan d Mute
    @Mr. Blank

    One would hope that since the episode you have decreased your work output and quality to that of the average affirmative action HR or DIE worker while spending every available moment looking for the exit.

    If not, we can only conclude that you like it.

    The time is now about 30 years overdue for the general strike of all white men who actually produce stuff (power, water, sanitation, food, durable goods, etc). All of the parasitic FIRE class can of course keep working since they contribute little to nothing of value anyway.

    Replies: @JackOH

    Stan, if very able political leadership could be found, I could support a “silent strike” of, say, disgruntled white collar folks, skilled tradesmen, and pretty much anyone else with a beef. You’d need a real expert, and master of rhetorical discipline, and the capability of following through.

    A Web site with a simple message encouraging workers to “silently” take a particular day off might be a start. You’d need to do plenty of homework, but, if I’m not mistaken, those Occupy Wall Street protests, which turned out not to have legs, began with a magazine article.

  111. @notbe
    @Abolish_public_education

    ...except when you do that, the powers that be will fire you from your job

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    except when you do that, the powers that be will fire you from your job

    They can only fire you if they can afford to fire you. Remember that one you youngsters who aren’t reading. If firing you means immediate revenue losses or future losses that can’t be stemmed, it’s always the other guy who gets it.

    Make sure that you are a producer.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Stan d Mute

    Your antagonist will run to social media or the press and turn your employer's refusal to fire you into a national controversy. That will cost him way more than you're worth.

  112. Eagle Eye says:
    @VivaLaMigra
    @Anonymous


    But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives his or her [[sic] lunacy
     
    May I suggest that a far more fluent construction would be: " But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives one's lunacy...." The use of the indefinite pronoun "one" eliminates the very clumsy, and utterly unnecessary, "his or her." The use of the pronoun "his" in this context has been accepted, and grammatically correct, for centuries. We don't know the specific gender of this hypothetical person, but we do know we're discussing ONE person and the singular pronoun "his" suffices. CONTEXT matters in language. Any literate speaker of English is taught to accept that "his" isn't gender specific in this usage; it's the singular form that's significant to the meaning of the phrase.

    Replies: @Eagle Eye

    The use of the indefinite pronoun “one” eliminates the … unnecessary, “his or her.”

    NO. It is not at all clear – particularly in this context – that the writer meant to blend the meanings of “his” and “her” into a collective term, and one occurrence of “or her” is hardly “clumsy.”

    More seriously, “one’s” introduces an avoidable ambiguity in that “one” is also used as a euphemism for “I.” “One’s lunacy” could thus refer to the lunacy of the listener. Readers would have to resort to contextual clues to resolve the ambiguity – precisely what clear writing should avoid.

    Feminists and many others misunderstand the grammatical gender system in English. “She/her/hers” is used exclusively to refer to a female, in the singular only. “He/him/his” similarly refers exclusively to a male, again in the singular only. English does not have a plural pronoun to refers to a group of males only, or of females only.

  113. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    Your philosophy of "helping" is indistinguishable from an excuse for you to enjoy sadism against people you don't identify with.

    If you ever wonder why some people see you in a darker light than you see yourself, this should be a big clue.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Art Deco

    You’re saying the 99.5% of us should “help” the 0.5% who are trying to destroy us?

    What is wrong with you?

    The analogy to drunks is stupid, but in any case, no one ever said that their habit helps them or anyone. A lot of writers were lushes but that was a tragic cross to bear, and in any case, no one pretended that this was good for them or society.

    The transgender ideology is pure & simple madness. It must be crushed and pounded out of existence.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Paperback Writer


    You’re saying the 99.5% of us should “help” the 0.5% who are trying to destroy us?
     
    You believe that transgender people are trying to destroy you?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Art Deco

  114. @Paperback Writer
    @Triteleia Laxa

    You're saying the 99.5% of us should "help" the 0.5% who are trying to destroy us?

    What is wrong with you?

    The analogy to drunks is stupid, but in any case, no one ever said that their habit helps them or anyone. A lot of writers were lushes but that was a tragic cross to bear, and in any case, no one pretended that this was good for them or society.

    The transgender ideology is pure & simple madness. It must be crushed and pounded out of existence.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    You’re saying the 99.5% of us should “help” the 0.5% who are trying to destroy us?

    You believe that transgender people are trying to destroy you?

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I think what he is saying is, An attempt by a very tiny, self-obsessed, and possibly deranged minority to subvert and re-order the language of the other 99% of its speakers for its sole benefit is, whether intentional or not, a form of monkey-wrenching: it is pouring sand into the gears of a society.

    An analogy would be the so-called War on Christmas: Jews came to America, pleading persecution, knowing perfectly well that this was an overwhelmingly Christian country; and are granted not only asylum, but freedom to amass unprecedented wealth, power and influence.

    Once comfortably ensconced and impossible to remove, Jews then decide that the cheerful, harmless, and overwhelmingly common phrase "Merry Christmas" somehow offends them, and they labor day and night to erase this simple bit of useful social capital from the American lexicon, solely for their own benefit. Something vital and socially useful has been lost, and replaced with something flavorless, useless, and (to the majority) deeply offensive, for sole benefit of a spiteful and destructive minority. You don't think that is de facto "trying to destroy us"?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    No, they're attention whores refusing to address their real problems and they and their advocates are attempting to injure others who won't play lets pretend with them. You want to help them, don't play along.

    We have a soi-disant 'transgender' in our social circle. She has real problems. She's an alcoholic who is rather loosely wired so does not have apposite emotional self-regulation for a woman of 37. She's been fired from her job umpteen times in the last six years and been in and out of lesbian relationships notable for drama and not much else. Now she's persuaded herself she's actually a man. She needs to quit drinking, stay away from lesbians, and learn some anger management - not have her breast chopped off and get herself shot full of testosterone.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  115. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Paperback Writer


    You’re saying the 99.5% of us should “help” the 0.5% who are trying to destroy us?
     
    You believe that transgender people are trying to destroy you?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Art Deco

    I think what he is saying is, An attempt by a very tiny, self-obsessed, and possibly deranged minority to subvert and re-order the language of the other 99% of its speakers for its sole benefit is, whether intentional or not, a form of monkey-wrenching: it is pouring sand into the gears of a society.

    An analogy would be the so-called War on Christmas: Jews came to America, pleading persecution, knowing perfectly well that this was an overwhelmingly Christian country; and are granted not only asylum, but freedom to amass unprecedented wealth, power and influence.

    Once comfortably ensconced and impossible to remove, Jews then decide that the cheerful, harmless, and overwhelmingly common phrase “Merry Christmas” somehow offends them, and they labor day and night to erase this simple bit of useful social capital from the American lexicon, solely for their own benefit. Something vital and socially useful has been lost, and replaced with something flavorless, useless, and (to the majority) deeply offensive, for sole benefit of a spiteful and destructive minority. You don’t think that is de facto “trying to destroy us”?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I think you've constructed a fantasy which you find useful, based on a couple of quarter truths.



    Why see your own spitefulness or destructiveness when you can defend yourself from doing so by immediately ranting about the Jews whenever you start to feel it?

    I hope this works out for you, but I doubt it does.

    And no, transgender people are not destroying society. They destroy themselves and provide only a minor inconvenience to most of everyone else. I am sure they also personally hurt some other individuals, but that characteristic is hardly limited to them. I am sorry you feel like you have sand in your head.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  116. They’re destroying society. Idiot: when I say “us” I mean society. You don’t get that.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Paperback Writer


    They’re destroying society. Idiot: when I say “us” I mean society. You don’t get that.
     
    So they're not destroying you, but they are destroying society? How is it that you're not destroyed along with society?
  117. @Paperback Writer
    They're destroying society. Idiot: when I say "us" I mean society. You don't get that.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    They’re destroying society. Idiot: when I say “us” I mean society. You don’t get that.

    So they’re not destroying you, but they are destroying society? How is it that you’re not destroyed along with society?

  118. @tyrone
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It's always interesting to get a little slice of life........ cherry coke?.....starburst gummies?....they didn't have the extremely red hot dogs rotating in the broiler?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    You’ll always get a slice of … somethin’ from me here. No, there was a foyer of sorts in that store, so I didn’t get in to see if they had the shrunken bright red hot dogs. ;-}

    I did find out recently that there are at least 5, FIVE, flavors of Moon Pies. I had no idea…

  119. @Anonymous
    @Simon

    This is a reasonable argument, and I'm sure many decent and intelligent people would find it convincing.
    But it is a fact of our times that anyone today making such demands is not making them as an isolated lunatic, but as someone who perceives his or her lunacy as aligned with the moral flow of history. And yet what the confused person perceives as freedom and moral progress is growing totalitarianism and evil.
    I think what is required in our times is immediate rebuke.
    You are being asked to lie.
    And you are being asked to lie in a way that directly and indirectly fosters deep moral evil.
    Anyone concerned about how others perceive their gender is salvageable.
    They don't fully believe absolute nonsense.
    You are harming them by accomodating them.
    But of course, we have to choose our battles, and the "bigger" moral problem is that you are harming others.
    You are harming clueless young men and women who might feel the attraction of the nonsense as a way of validating their existence in a world that increasingly hides meaning from most.
    And you are harming more sane men and women who nonetheless might not fully internally perceive manhood or womanhood as intrinsic to who they are, and so might waver in trying to become the best man or woman possible.

    DO NOT TELL ME TO LIE.
    You might lose your job or "friends", but you will become stronger.

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra, @njguy73

    You might lose your job or “friends”, but you will become stronger.

    I sure hope your mortgage is paid off and you have F-You money in the bank.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @njguy73

    Alas, I merely find embracing cowardice abhorent.

  120. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @njguy73
    @Anonymous


    You might lose your job or “friends”, but you will become stronger.

     

    I sure hope your mortgage is paid off and you have F-You money in the bank.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Alas, I merely find embracing cowardice abhorent.

  121. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    I agree with Reg here. This cultural revoulution is part of the conquering and, in fact, a pretty good start. If people won't fight back the purposeful stupidity on these issues, they sure as hell ain't gonna fight when the Communist Feral government starts telling them to stay inside for a month as a personal LOCKDOWN for some trangression or another.

    America is full of pussies who are now masking up for Season 3 of the Flu Manchu PanicFest as I write. I had a run in at a gas station with a fat broad who wanted to take my temperature. I really was going to let her, but she took issue with a few remarks that included the words "hysterical", "retarded", and "you ain't gonna die today, lady." That gas station didn't make a sale of 4 gallons, a cherry Coke, and a bag of Starburst gummies, let me tell you right now. I've been banned from 76.

    Replies: @El Dato, @tyrone, @Anonymous

    I had a run in at a gas station with a fat broad who wanted to take my temperature.

    Was this a corporate policy (i.e. there was a sign on the door telling people this is what they could expect) or her personal policy?

    I ask because the temperature-taking process simply screams “liability” to me (e.g. the newly-minted plaintiff insisting “I caught Covid from standing close to your tester/the customer being tested).

    Is this practice, in fact, a good idea and I am just not seeing it?

    I really was going to let her, but she took issue with a few remarks that included the words “hysterical”, “retarded”, and “you ain’t gonna die today, lady.”

    I would have simply turned tail and left without a word. Rightly or wrongly, this Covid business seems to have instilled in me the habit of measuring personal interactions largely in terms of, “How much energy will taking Action X cost me?” If the answer is, “a lot,” well, there had better be a large cheque waiting for me at the end of it.

    Most people, I am convinced, are simply not worth the bother.

    This woman is not helping tired, dusty travelers feel welcome, to say the least, but I have to wonder how much of what she did was up to her, and how much may have been the result of a “do this or else” memo from her corporate masters.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anonymous

    Thanks for the introspection on this, #111.

    I do not remember any sign about the Temp. taking, but I do remember a big one about the masking. Keep in mind, because I didn't write this yet, that one had to be let in - the door was locked otherwise. I am not the type to relish any lawsuit, just because I hate having any unsure business like that hanging over my head - good or bad.

    Note that I did not call the woman herself a retard or hysterical, just that "you people here are hysterical, and this crap is retarded" - like that. I would completely agree that this was not the fat broad's policy herself. I made the comments because someone's got to start instilling some sense in people's heads. I doubt she had any to start with that day.

    Oh yeah, we were about 6 in. away for a while there! I asked a guy locally a year ago, in the midst of this, whether he was hysterical or just doing all this to not get in trouble with the city. Yeah, we were 6" apart for a while too.

    Lastly, this place is no where near where I live, so I don't have to live with it. For that, I am very grateful. A couple of States away, everything is cool.

    Replies: @anon, @Anonymous

  122. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    Your philosophy of "helping" is indistinguishable from an excuse for you to enjoy sadism against people you don't identify with.

    If you ever wonder why some people see you in a darker light than you see yourself, this should be a big clue.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Art Deco

    Your philosophy of “helping” is indistinguishable from an excuse for you to enjoy sadism against people you don’t identify with.

    Thanks for your wisdom, emo kid. I can feel the love.

    What it actually is is a preference for letting nature take its course and instruct the misbehaving subject so he stops misbehaving. Nature taking its course means he is put out if he doesn’t respect the rules in his father’s house or on his landlord’s property, fired from his job if he’s an unreliable or troublesome employee, has to pay his debts or face the repo man if he does not, and he goes to jail if he commits crimes. It assumes personal agency. If that’s ‘sadism’, then your father’s rules, your landlords rules, your employers rules, financial obligation, and the penal code are all ‘sadistic’. I don’t doubt there are people on the Minneapolis city council who think this way; that’s why they shouldn’t be permitted any discretion in this world in which we live.

    Of course, the foregoing is anathema to people who make their living in the helping professions (the social worker I mentioned being an odd exception).

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    Nature is whatever happens. Stop ventriloquising her to try to justify the particular course of events which you prefer.



    I also wasn't criticising your sadistic impulses. I was just noticing them. I think they are vital in allowing empathetic people, like you, which I can see from your other post, to not suffer pointlessly when they see other people enmeshed in suffering. You might also realise that your friend of friend has chosen the life she needs, whether she is aware of it or not. All of the things you think she should learn, may well be the things she should learn, but only by living this life is she going to learn them. That's tough to see, but it is also life, in the best of ways.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  123. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Paperback Writer


    You’re saying the 99.5% of us should “help” the 0.5% who are trying to destroy us?
     
    You believe that transgender people are trying to destroy you?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Art Deco

    No, they’re attention whores refusing to address their real problems and they and their advocates are attempting to injure others who won’t play lets pretend with them. You want to help them, don’t play along.

    We have a soi-disant ‘transgender’ in our social circle. She has real problems. She’s an alcoholic who is rather loosely wired so does not have apposite emotional self-regulation for a woman of 37. She’s been fired from her job umpteen times in the last six years and been in and out of lesbian relationships notable for drama and not much else. Now she’s persuaded herself she’s actually a man. She needs to quit drinking, stay away from lesbians, and learn some anger management – not have her breast chopped off and get herself shot full of testosterone.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    I sincerely agree with your empathetic summary.

    I only add that sometimes people's need to drink themselves to death is so deep that it is better to kindly tolerate their alcoholism, deal with your own pain at the tragedy and let them get on with it.



    They'll come back having learned whatever it is they needed to.

  124. @slumber_j
    @Steve Sailer

    Because of his subject's personal weirdness, literally incredible life circumstances and peripatetic tendencies, Ray Monk's Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius is the rare biography of an academic philosopher that you actually want to read all the way through. I recommend it highly.

    Anyway, I made reference to some of these Wittgensteinian concerns about language the other day in a comment on your post on whether species do or do not exist. With apologies for quoting myself, but I think this is relevant here too:


    Utility of expressions does lie at the heart of Wittgenstein’s work, and the very human tendency to confuse expression and referent is one of his biggest concerns and I think the more relevant one here. Whether species exist is a question that has a lot more to do with how we use the word than anything else: as ever, language is a social convention.

    Top-down insistence on telling us what words may or may not mean is necessarily nonsense. Until recently most Anglophones understood this at least implicitly, which is why (unlike the French or Spanish e.g.) we lack an Academy to dictate what words mean. We have the OED or whatever to point us in the right direction, but it’s not prescriptive. English Common Law is a legal analogue to this by the way, a fact I’ve never seen discussed, but probably I’m just ignorant.
     

    Replies: @ThreeCranes

    “Utility of expression….” Yes, this is right.

    From my reading of Wittgenstein (fifty years ago) I recall that as a young man he sought to discover the absolute foundation and laws of language. Eventually, he became so immeshed in the impossibilities of the effort that he abandoned the project. Wittgenstein’s Vienna (the title of a book) was also ground zero for Freudianism and was the intellectual center of gravity for the scientists who were making revolutionary strides in sub-atomic particle physics. Language was being called upon to do things for which it was not originally intended and to which it did not seem perfectly adapted.

    [MORE]

    Over in England, Bertrand Russell was similarly inspired, but took a different tack, with his analytical approach in which he tried to build language upon a base unit of absolute unambiguous meaning that would be assembled by strict laws into ever more comprehensive phrases, sentences, paragraphs etc.

    All of this stuff failed. In Wittgenstein’s later writings he spoke of language as being not a single thing, but the product of whatever group used it. So, for example, let’s look at the following three expressions:

    “Hey! More mud up here.”

    “Here’s mud in your eye.”

    “Break a leg.”

    Now, the master mason who hollers at the apprentice who is mixing the mortar down below is not literally asking for the apprentice to throw mud at him. And if the apprentice took it that way, he would find out in short order that when we humans speak, we don’t speak literally. No, what the master mason wants is “mud” of a very specific kind, having just the right consistency and made of just the right proportions of sand, cement and water. No ifs, ands or buts. “Or you’ll be out on your butt!”

    When we toast a stranger in the Pub with “Mud in your eye”, he would be very surprised if we actually flung mud at him. And we would likely go home with fewer teeth in our mouths if we literally did as we said.

    When we encourage a fellow actor to “Break a leg” we don’t mean it literally, of course. It means, go for broke and knock ’em dead.

    “Knock em dead”!!!???

    You see? We can’t get away from it. Language cannot be reduced to words of single clear, unequivocal meanings bound together by one set of rules. Words change meaning according to how they are used by different groups and in their particular context. There is no one set of rules by which we can decipher the derivative for the meaning for all of these words. If we were to try and prescribe one way or one meaning for a word, all the color would go out of our language. The richness, the texture would disappear.

    And because of the above, language is not just about the referent. It is about belonging to a group. The person who took any of the above literally would demonstrate that they were not members. They would suffer from autism or Asperger’s (Steve’s insight) and would probably be referred to the Human Resource department for review. So, using language in the locally conventional way is what makes us members of unique groups. And this is just what is under consideration in the present case. Trannies, people of ambiguous sexuality and their supporters are laying out the use of language for members of their group. If you don’t abide, then you’re not a member. At the same time, they show that they don’t care to belong to your group.

    • Thanks: slumber_j
  125. @Dieter Kief
    @Right_On

    Aww, he finds himself at times bound or bewitched even, by his own observations. Wittgenstein too then has to cross the swamp of the Ego-philosophy. - The way out being intersubjective philosophy (Jürgen Habermas).

    Replies: @Anon62

    Habermas’ primary concern is the role of intersubjectivity in human affairs.

    What we call “truth” is something that is agreed between the two of us, or is agreed by tacit common usage within the community of which we find ourselves a part. It is true that “freedom fries” may have once existed but that particular usage is now deprecated and forgotten.

    It is clear from history (and also contemporary practice) that we find some “truth” claims to be highly objectionable. One groups ideal may be another groups holocaust.

    Another example – “the rules based international order” means precisely whatever the global hegemon claims it means and, as is presently the case, any such proclamation by the hegemon is likely to conflict with accepted international law and the contemporary usage and meaning endorsed and accepted by other states.

    As has been asserted up thread any intersubjective “truth claim” (and all “truth claims” are intersubjective) is subject to contestation. In the anarchy of international relations any claim by the hegemon may ultimately be contested by other states and this invariably proceeds to armed conflict after which the victor writes history.

    This endless process is known as “progress.”

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Anon62


    Habermas’ primary concern is the role of intersubjectivity in human affairs.

     

    That's partly right, I'd hold. It is not only right in human affairs, but the concept of intersubjectivity also serves him as a philosophical organon, so to speak. And as such, it is the one with which enables him to look further than it was hitherto the case. With it, he cuts through lots and lots of philosophical dead wood, which could not be seen with such clarity and elegance, as long as his concept did not exist. All kinds of ontological and problems like the question for the prima causa and/or the first mover disappear. As do all kinds of leftist fetishes like the question of whether possession is the original misstep of the bourgeois society or rather the suppression of women or slavery or what have you...
    Big scale Habermas is open for pessimism. Or realism. Or whatever you want to call it. So I would not want to contradict you here.

    But let me add something if you please: Habermas' position here derives (not least) from Kant's (not least ironically tinted - hardly a reader grasps this, even though Kant did not hide it at all, but spelled his ironic perspective out in the opening paragraphs) - - - -Haberms' starting point here is Immanuel Kant's not least ironically tinted little book Eternal Peace, which indeed contains a vision of world peace and a political world treaty.

    Basic Habermas is, that truth or being right is a gradual thing that changes its color so to speak from the 1) nomological (measuring) sciences via the 2) social ones (the law, political science, sociology) to the 3) aesthetical field. - Becoming less and less regulated and more and more open to subjectivity from 1) to 3).

    Throughout, Habermas claims, there should be no constraints to the arguments*** that constitute the fields. Or to the argumentation that accompanies the creation and the -necessarily taking place - transformation of each and every field of knowledge, not least, because every individual's perspective adds something not seen or heard about before to the big picture. That's Hegel's vindication of Heraclitus' everthing is in flux for - world history - and thus as the central element that is defining modernity (our times, still).

    *** other than their reasonableness. Which in his mind implies not only politeness while arguing, but also a restriction of those taking part in public discourses. These should be centered on - sound (!) arguments, not tactics or strategies, as long as they are taking place in the intellectual field, which should serve to clarify positions and reasons.
    Politics then is about majorities for one of the positions that have been clarified. - Habermas's sociological and theoretical theory is quite compatible with what's happening in Switzerland.

  126. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I think what he is saying is, An attempt by a very tiny, self-obsessed, and possibly deranged minority to subvert and re-order the language of the other 99% of its speakers for its sole benefit is, whether intentional or not, a form of monkey-wrenching: it is pouring sand into the gears of a society.

    An analogy would be the so-called War on Christmas: Jews came to America, pleading persecution, knowing perfectly well that this was an overwhelmingly Christian country; and are granted not only asylum, but freedom to amass unprecedented wealth, power and influence.

    Once comfortably ensconced and impossible to remove, Jews then decide that the cheerful, harmless, and overwhelmingly common phrase "Merry Christmas" somehow offends them, and they labor day and night to erase this simple bit of useful social capital from the American lexicon, solely for their own benefit. Something vital and socially useful has been lost, and replaced with something flavorless, useless, and (to the majority) deeply offensive, for sole benefit of a spiteful and destructive minority. You don't think that is de facto "trying to destroy us"?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I think you’ve constructed a fantasy which you find useful, based on a couple of quarter truths.

    [MORE]

    Why see your own spitefulness or destructiveness when you can defend yourself from doing so by immediately ranting about the Jews whenever you start to feel it?

    I hope this works out for you, but I doubt it does.

    And no, transgender people are not destroying society. They destroy themselves and provide only a minor inconvenience to most of everyone else. I am sure they also personally hurt some other individuals, but that characteristic is hardly limited to them. I am sorry you feel like you have sand in your head.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Triteleia Laxa


    And no, transgender people are not destroying society. They destroy themselves and provide only a minor inconvenience to most of everyone else.
     
    If someone does not value his/her own life to the point where they are actively destroying themselves, why would they care in the slightest about the well-being of anyone else?

    It's wonderful that you think well enough of transgender people to sincerely believe that they are not out to do anything more than cause a "minor inconvenience" to most of everyone else, but I do not think I am talking out of turn when I say that the evidence points glaringly to the contrary.

    I cannot say I know a lot about this board, but no one here seems to begrudge other folks indulging their private fantasies in private. However, it is apparent that transgender people have sought and continue to seek the use of the full force of the state to heavily fine and/or imprison people who are not willing to go along with their fantasies.

    Have a chat sometime with someone who has endured hefty fines or imprisonment and ask them if they felt they had been subjected to a "minor inconvenience." The answer may surprise you.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  127. @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    No, they're attention whores refusing to address their real problems and they and their advocates are attempting to injure others who won't play lets pretend with them. You want to help them, don't play along.

    We have a soi-disant 'transgender' in our social circle. She has real problems. She's an alcoholic who is rather loosely wired so does not have apposite emotional self-regulation for a woman of 37. She's been fired from her job umpteen times in the last six years and been in and out of lesbian relationships notable for drama and not much else. Now she's persuaded herself she's actually a man. She needs to quit drinking, stay away from lesbians, and learn some anger management - not have her breast chopped off and get herself shot full of testosterone.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I sincerely agree with your empathetic summary.

    I only add that sometimes people’s need to drink themselves to death is so deep that it is better to kindly tolerate their alcoholism, deal with your own pain at the tragedy and let them get on with it.

    [MORE]

    They’ll come back having learned whatever it is they needed to.

  128. @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Your philosophy of “helping” is indistinguishable from an excuse for you to enjoy sadism against people you don’t identify with.

    Thanks for your wisdom, emo kid. I can feel the love.

    What it actually is is a preference for letting nature take its course and instruct the misbehaving subject so he stops misbehaving. Nature taking its course means he is put out if he doesn't respect the rules in his father's house or on his landlord's property, fired from his job if he's an unreliable or troublesome employee, has to pay his debts or face the repo man if he does not, and he goes to jail if he commits crimes. It assumes personal agency. If that's 'sadism', then your father's rules, your landlords rules, your employers rules, financial obligation, and the penal code are all 'sadistic'. I don't doubt there are people on the Minneapolis city council who think this way; that's why they shouldn't be permitted any discretion in this world in which we live.

    Of course, the foregoing is anathema to people who make their living in the helping professions (the social worker I mentioned being an odd exception).

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Nature is whatever happens. Stop ventriloquising her to try to justify the particular course of events which you prefer.

    [MORE]

    I also wasn’t criticising your sadistic impulses. I was just noticing them. I think they are vital in allowing empathetic people, like you, which I can see from your other post, to not suffer pointlessly when they see other people enmeshed in suffering. You might also realise that your friend of friend has chosen the life she needs, whether she is aware of it or not. All of the things you think she should learn, may well be the things she should learn, but only by living this life is she going to learn them. That’s tough to see, but it is also life, in the best of ways.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The term 'sadistic' doesn't mean what you fancy it means.

    If you would prefer 'let ordinary social life take its course' in lieu of 'let nature take its course', fine.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  129. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    Nature is whatever happens. Stop ventriloquising her to try to justify the particular course of events which you prefer.



    I also wasn't criticising your sadistic impulses. I was just noticing them. I think they are vital in allowing empathetic people, like you, which I can see from your other post, to not suffer pointlessly when they see other people enmeshed in suffering. You might also realise that your friend of friend has chosen the life she needs, whether she is aware of it or not. All of the things you think she should learn, may well be the things she should learn, but only by living this life is she going to learn them. That's tough to see, but it is also life, in the best of ways.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    The term ‘sadistic’ doesn’t mean what you fancy it means.

    If you would prefer ‘let ordinary social life take its course’ in lieu of ‘let nature take its course’, fine.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    Sadism is finding excitement in the suffering of others. It balances out the pain you feel too. It allows people to perceive reality without the distress of it all closing their senses off from awareness. If balanced with empathy, it leads to tunefulness, instead of the dissonance that occurs when someone only has one.

    Also, "ordinary" in the present is quite different from what you have decided it should be. You were ventriloquising "nature", now you are doing the same with "ordinary," but each time it is your own voice. Why not own it?

    Replies: @Art Deco

  130. @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The term 'sadistic' doesn't mean what you fancy it means.

    If you would prefer 'let ordinary social life take its course' in lieu of 'let nature take its course', fine.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Sadism is finding excitement in the suffering of others. It balances out the pain you feel too. It allows people to perceive reality without the distress of it all closing their senses off from awareness. If balanced with empathy, it leads to tunefulness, instead of the dissonance that occurs when someone only has one.

    Also, “ordinary” in the present is quite different from what you have decided it should be. You were ventriloquising “nature”, now you are doing the same with “ordinary,” but each time it is your own voice. Why not own it?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Sadism is finding excitement in the suffering of others.

    Which wasn't incorporated into anything I said to you. Thanks for the self-indictment.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  131. @Dieter Kief
    @kaganovitch


    (Karl Kraus was) Absolutely gifted at pure poison.
     
    Right. Sigh. But it does get a bit boring over time if somebody just hammers out his own bitter truths and nothing but. - Over time meaning over decades. It is just no - easy, let's say - way to - get old and stay productive.

    Hans Magnus Enzensberger - who very elegantly circumvented the cliff of just proving to everybody that he can - time and time again - look down on them, dwarf them, annihilate them . . . found out in 1975 ff. that there is something completely wrong with this attitude of him and his - angry comrades... - - - and he then very elegantly shifted gears and became a more distant and - joyful even - writer (while remaining a critic - but not throughout).
    When he finally passed seventy, he put that experience in this formula: Der Zorn altert, die Ironie bleibt. - Rage gets older (altert is double-coded in German, because it means not only older but has also an overtone of being left behind by him - - - while he is getting older****) - whereas irony lasts.

    ***** an interesting paradox, methinks: Getting older allowed the once rebellious man to understand that now that he is old - rage has gotten outdated for him. While getting old you are able to let rage behind - it is all of a sudden older than yourself. Paradoxical and funny: A parallel movement on different scales which lets getting old appear as existential progress and - gain.


    PS

    In praising the cosmic mind and sky-high genius - novelist, philosopher, pedagogue, aphorist & humorist Jean Paul, Karl Kraus was on the track out of his limitations. But his praise might have been a bit shallow. Or his urge to act in a rather raging and poisonous way was just too strong to be tuned down, let alone be released.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Right. Sigh. But it does get a bit boring over time if somebody just hammers out his own bitter truths and nothing but.

    As my German is somewhat limited and rusty I only read small doses of Kraus which is tolerable. I remember my late father obm – whose hardbound copies of die Fackel I inherited – when reading certain of Kraus’s articles used to say “Dieser kerl wahr einer miese säge,aber hatte er Sprachgefühl !”

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @kaganovitch


    “Dieser kerl wahr einer miese säge,aber hatte er Sprachgefühl !”
     
    That about sums it up. Karl Kraus i.s. - brilliant at times in all his loathing and dissecting and disentangling...

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  132. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    Sadism is finding excitement in the suffering of others. It balances out the pain you feel too. It allows people to perceive reality without the distress of it all closing their senses off from awareness. If balanced with empathy, it leads to tunefulness, instead of the dissonance that occurs when someone only has one.

    Also, "ordinary" in the present is quite different from what you have decided it should be. You were ventriloquising "nature", now you are doing the same with "ordinary," but each time it is your own voice. Why not own it?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Sadism is finding excitement in the suffering of others.

    Which wasn’t incorporated into anything I said to you. Thanks for the self-indictment.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    I said your argument was indistinguishable from a mere excuse for it, not that it was literally the same wording.

    Do you understand the difference between what I said and what you are saying I said?

    Replies: @Art Deco

  133. @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Sadism is finding excitement in the suffering of others.

    Which wasn't incorporated into anything I said to you. Thanks for the self-indictment.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I said your argument was indistinguishable from a mere excuse for it, not that it was literally the same wording.

    Do you understand the difference between what I said and what you are saying I said?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Do you understand the difference between what I said and what you are saying I said?

    Do you understand the difference you're positing is nonsense? People don't evict tenants, repossess cars, fire problem employees, or put their n'er-do-well children out on the curb to enjoy themselves.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  134. “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

    That’s toxic white make patriarchy right there (assuming Humpty wasn’t a brown egg).

  135. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I think you've constructed a fantasy which you find useful, based on a couple of quarter truths.



    Why see your own spitefulness or destructiveness when you can defend yourself from doing so by immediately ranting about the Jews whenever you start to feel it?

    I hope this works out for you, but I doubt it does.

    And no, transgender people are not destroying society. They destroy themselves and provide only a minor inconvenience to most of everyone else. I am sure they also personally hurt some other individuals, but that characteristic is hardly limited to them. I am sorry you feel like you have sand in your head.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    And no, transgender people are not destroying society. They destroy themselves and provide only a minor inconvenience to most of everyone else.

    If someone does not value his/her own life to the point where they are actively destroying themselves, why would they care in the slightest about the well-being of anyone else?

    It’s wonderful that you think well enough of transgender people to sincerely believe that they are not out to do anything more than cause a “minor inconvenience” to most of everyone else, but I do not think I am talking out of turn when I say that the evidence points glaringly to the contrary.

    I cannot say I know a lot about this board, but no one here seems to begrudge other folks indulging their private fantasies in private. However, it is apparent that transgender people have sought and continue to seek the use of the full force of the state to heavily fine and/or imprison people who are not willing to go along with their fantasies.

    Have a chat sometime with someone who has endured hefty fines or imprisonment and ask them if they felt they had been subjected to a “minor inconvenience.” The answer may surprise you.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Anonymous

    I believe I covered your individual cases in my comment and I agreed with your sentiments.


    If someone does not value his/her own life to the point where they are actively destroying themselves, why would they care in the slightest about the well-being of anyone else?
     
    If you set yourself against people who are actively destroying themselves, you will have near infinite opposition.

    I am also not being nearly as hippy dippy as you think. I made the observation that if you want people to change, it pays to understand them better than they understand themselves.

    I consider this a straightforward fact, but I should have connected it with a second observation. People can't understand others, especially those they have decided they are in competition with, because they find approaching that understanding to be a threat to their perspective.

    This second observation suggests why my first observation, which is rather plain and uncontentious, can be experienced as invasive or provocative. Perhaps it isn't actually the reason why, in this case, maybe you have an alternative one?

    Replies: @Anonymous

  136. @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    Right. Sigh. But it does get a bit boring over time if somebody just hammers out his own bitter truths and nothing but.

    As my German is somewhat limited and rusty I only read small doses of Kraus which is tolerable. I remember my late father obm - whose hardbound copies of die Fackel I inherited - when reading certain of Kraus's articles used to say "Dieser kerl wahr einer miese säge,aber hatte er Sprachgefühl !"

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    “Dieser kerl wahr einer miese säge,aber hatte er Sprachgefühl !”

    That about sums it up. Karl Kraus i.s. – brilliant at times in all his loathing and dissecting and disentangling…

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    I meant to ask, is the idiom 'einer miese säge' still in use? I heard it often as a child at home.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  137. @Anonymous
    @Triteleia Laxa


    And no, transgender people are not destroying society. They destroy themselves and provide only a minor inconvenience to most of everyone else.
     
    If someone does not value his/her own life to the point where they are actively destroying themselves, why would they care in the slightest about the well-being of anyone else?

    It's wonderful that you think well enough of transgender people to sincerely believe that they are not out to do anything more than cause a "minor inconvenience" to most of everyone else, but I do not think I am talking out of turn when I say that the evidence points glaringly to the contrary.

    I cannot say I know a lot about this board, but no one here seems to begrudge other folks indulging their private fantasies in private. However, it is apparent that transgender people have sought and continue to seek the use of the full force of the state to heavily fine and/or imprison people who are not willing to go along with their fantasies.

    Have a chat sometime with someone who has endured hefty fines or imprisonment and ask them if they felt they had been subjected to a "minor inconvenience." The answer may surprise you.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I believe I covered your individual cases in my comment and I agreed with your sentiments.

    If someone does not value his/her own life to the point where they are actively destroying themselves, why would they care in the slightest about the well-being of anyone else?

    If you set yourself against people who are actively destroying themselves, you will have near infinite opposition.

    I am also not being nearly as hippy dippy as you think. I made the observation that if you want people to change, it pays to understand them better than they understand themselves.

    I consider this a straightforward fact, but I should have connected it with a second observation. People can’t understand others, especially those they have decided they are in competition with, because they find approaching that understanding to be a threat to their perspective.

    This second observation suggests why my first observation, which is rather plain and uncontentious, can be experienced as invasive or provocative. Perhaps it isn’t actually the reason why, in this case, maybe you have an alternative one?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Triteleia Laxa


    If you set yourself against people who are actively destroying themselves, you will have near infinite opposition.
     
    I did not say I was interested in setting myself against people who are actively destroying themselves (or anyone else, either).

    Rather, I was attempting to point out that the whole "I'm going to use force to get what I want" business gets a wee bit old after a while. It does not win the "might makes right" crowd any friends, either, but they don't seem to care as much about winning me over as they do about beating me over the head.

    I am also not being nearly as hippy dippy as you think.

     

    One does not have to be "hippy dippy" (your phrase, not mine) to get hold of the wrong end of the stick. Perfectly sensible people do it all the time and it can happen to the best of us.

    I made the observation that if you want people to change, it pays to understand them better than they understand themselves.
     
    If it helps matter along, I am not interested in changing anyone. Rather, I am interested in having people who are keen on beating me over the head with their own worldview to knock it off.

    I am too busy trying to change myself to be interested in changing other people just now, thank you. I would prefer, instead, that they leave me to get on with what I was already doing. Fair enough?

    It is one of life's little peculiarities, but folk always seem to fall in one of two camps: those who want to control other people and those who do not have that desire. It is not difficult to work out which camp the transgender folks fall into.

    With any luck, my writing makes it easy for the reader to discern which camp I fall into.

    (I would hate to think all those school fees were wasted.)

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  138. @Anon62
    @Dieter Kief

    Habermas' primary concern is the role of intersubjectivity in human affairs.

    What we call "truth" is something that is agreed between the two of us, or is agreed by tacit common usage within the community of which we find ourselves a part. It is true that "freedom fries" may have once existed but that particular usage is now deprecated and forgotten.

    It is clear from history (and also contemporary practice) that we find some "truth" claims to be highly objectionable. One groups ideal may be another groups holocaust.

    Another example - "the rules based international order" means precisely whatever the global hegemon claims it means and, as is presently the case, any such proclamation by the hegemon is likely to conflict with accepted international law and the contemporary usage and meaning endorsed and accepted by other states.

    As has been asserted up thread any intersubjective "truth claim" (and all "truth claims" are intersubjective) is subject to contestation. In the anarchy of international relations any claim by the hegemon may ultimately be contested by other states and this invariably proceeds to armed conflict after which the victor writes history.

    This endless process is known as "progress."

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Habermas’ primary concern is the role of intersubjectivity in human affairs.

    That’s partly right, I’d hold. It is not only right in human affairs, but the concept of intersubjectivity also serves him as a philosophical organon, so to speak. And as such, it is the one with which enables him to look further than it was hitherto the case. With it, he cuts through lots and lots of philosophical dead wood, which could not be seen with such clarity and elegance, as long as his concept did not exist. All kinds of ontological and problems like the question for the prima causa and/or the first mover disappear. As do all kinds of leftist fetishes like the question of whether possession is the original misstep of the bourgeois society or rather the suppression of women or slavery or what have you…
    Big scale Habermas is open for pessimism. Or realism. Or whatever you want to call it. So I would not want to contradict you here.

    But let me add something if you please: Habermas’ position here derives (not least) from Kant’s (not least ironically tinted – hardly a reader grasps this, even though Kant did not hide it at all, but spelled his ironic perspective out in the opening paragraphs) – – – -Haberms’ starting point here is Immanuel Kant’s not least ironically tinted little book Eternal Peace, which indeed contains a vision of world peace and a political world treaty.

    Basic Habermas is, that truth or being right is a gradual thing that changes its color so to speak from the 1) nomological (measuring) sciences via the 2) social ones (the law, political science, sociology) to the 3) aesthetical field. – Becoming less and less regulated and more and more open to subjectivity from 1) to 3).

    Throughout, Habermas claims, there should be no constraints to the arguments*** that constitute the fields. Or to the argumentation that accompanies the creation and the -necessarily taking place – transformation of each and every field of knowledge, not least, because every individual’s perspective adds something not seen or heard about before to the big picture. That’s Hegel’s vindication of Heraclitus’ everthing is in flux for – world history – and thus as the central element that is defining modernity (our times, still).

    *** other than their reasonableness. Which in his mind implies not only politeness while arguing, but also a restriction of those taking part in public discourses. These should be centered on – sound (!) arguments, not tactics or strategies, as long as they are taking place in the intellectual field, which should serve to clarify positions and reasons.
    Politics then is about majorities for one of the positions that have been clarified. – Habermas’s sociological and theoretical theory is quite compatible with what’s happening in Switzerland.

  139. @James Speaks

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
     
    Emmett Till

    Replies: @Richard B

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    Yep.

    Humpty Dumpty wins every time. And then he falls off the wall.

    Making his win a Pyrrhic Victory.

  140. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    I said your argument was indistinguishable from a mere excuse for it, not that it was literally the same wording.

    Do you understand the difference between what I said and what you are saying I said?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Do you understand the difference between what I said and what you are saying I said?

    Do you understand the difference you’re positing is nonsense? People don’t evict tenants, repossess cars, fire problem employees, or put their n’er-do-well children out on the curb to enjoy themselves.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Art Deco

    People, even you, are more complicated that you currently perceive.

  141. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @Anonymous

    I believe I covered your individual cases in my comment and I agreed with your sentiments.


    If someone does not value his/her own life to the point where they are actively destroying themselves, why would they care in the slightest about the well-being of anyone else?
     
    If you set yourself against people who are actively destroying themselves, you will have near infinite opposition.

    I am also not being nearly as hippy dippy as you think. I made the observation that if you want people to change, it pays to understand them better than they understand themselves.

    I consider this a straightforward fact, but I should have connected it with a second observation. People can't understand others, especially those they have decided they are in competition with, because they find approaching that understanding to be a threat to their perspective.

    This second observation suggests why my first observation, which is rather plain and uncontentious, can be experienced as invasive or provocative. Perhaps it isn't actually the reason why, in this case, maybe you have an alternative one?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    If you set yourself against people who are actively destroying themselves, you will have near infinite opposition.

    I did not say I was interested in setting myself against people who are actively destroying themselves (or anyone else, either).

    Rather, I was attempting to point out that the whole “I’m going to use force to get what I want” business gets a wee bit old after a while. It does not win the “might makes right” crowd any friends, either, but they don’t seem to care as much about winning me over as they do about beating me over the head.

    I am also not being nearly as hippy dippy as you think.

    One does not have to be “hippy dippy” (your phrase, not mine) to get hold of the wrong end of the stick. Perfectly sensible people do it all the time and it can happen to the best of us.

    I made the observation that if you want people to change, it pays to understand them better than they understand themselves.

    If it helps matter along, I am not interested in changing anyone. Rather, I am interested in having people who are keen on beating me over the head with their own worldview to knock it off.

    I am too busy trying to change myself to be interested in changing other people just now, thank you. I would prefer, instead, that they leave me to get on with what I was already doing. Fair enough?

    It is one of life’s little peculiarities, but folk always seem to fall in one of two camps: those who want to control other people and those who do not have that desire. It is not difficult to work out which camp the transgender folks fall into.

    With any luck, my writing makes it easy for the reader to discern which camp I fall into.

    (I would hate to think all those school fees were wasted.)

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Anonymous


    It is one of life’s little peculiarities, but folk always seem to fall in one of two camps: those who want to control other people and those who do not have that desire. It is not difficult to work out which camp the transgender folks fall into.
     
    They fall into different camps, like all groups, but likely fall far more into the change themselves camp, think about it.
  142. @Anonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I had a run in at a gas station with a fat broad who wanted to take my temperature.
     
    Was this a corporate policy (i.e. there was a sign on the door telling people this is what they could expect) or her personal policy?

    I ask because the temperature-taking process simply screams "liability" to me (e.g. the newly-minted plaintiff insisting "I caught Covid from standing close to your tester/the customer being tested).

    Is this practice, in fact, a good idea and I am just not seeing it?

    I really was going to let her, but she took issue with a few remarks that included the words “hysterical”, “retarded”, and “you ain’t gonna die today, lady.”
     
    I would have simply turned tail and left without a word. Rightly or wrongly, this Covid business seems to have instilled in me the habit of measuring personal interactions largely in terms of, "How much energy will taking Action X cost me?" If the answer is, "a lot," well, there had better be a large cheque waiting for me at the end of it.

    Most people, I am convinced, are simply not worth the bother.

    This woman is not helping tired, dusty travelers feel welcome, to say the least, but I have to wonder how much of what she did was up to her, and how much may have been the result of a "do this or else" memo from her corporate masters.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Thanks for the introspection on this, #111.

    I do not remember any sign about the Temp. taking, but I do remember a big one about the masking. Keep in mind, because I didn’t write this yet, that one had to be let in – the door was locked otherwise. I am not the type to relish any lawsuit, just because I hate having any unsure business like that hanging over my head – good or bad.

    Note that I did not call the woman herself a retard or hysterical, just that “you people here are hysterical, and this crap is retarded” – like that. I would completely agree that this was not the fat broad’s policy herself. I made the comments because someone’s got to start instilling some sense in people’s heads. I doubt she had any to start with that day.

    Oh yeah, we were about 6 in. away for a while there! I asked a guy locally a year ago, in the midst of this, whether he was hysterical or just doing all this to not get in trouble with the city. Yeah, we were 6″ apart for a while too.

    Lastly, this place is no where near where I live, so I don’t have to live with it. For that, I am very grateful. A couple of States away, everything is cool.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Lastly, this place is no where near where I live, so I don’t have to live with it. For that, I am very grateful. A couple of States away, everything is cool.

    But I'm sure they will remember you, if you ever go back there. Not favorably, either.

    Poor situational awareness, dude.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Anonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Oh yeah, we were about 6 in. away for a while there! I asked a guy locally a year ago, in the midst of this, whether he was hysterical or just doing all this to not get in trouble with the city. Yeah, we were 6″ apart for a while too.
     
    Some of these so-called health measures are hilariously ill-conceived: "I need to get within kissing distance to determine whether you are ill." Really?

    The locked door business sounds odd, too, and distinctly unfriendly. I should think an open shop would have an open door, but that could just be my "wrecker" tendencies manifesting themselves again.

    In any event, I am glad to hear you got out of there in one piece and will not have to deal with that shop again. I thank my lucky stars that the shopkeepers round my way have yet to feel the need to play nurse.
  143. If a woman is “someone who identifies as a woman,” then, with simple replacement, what you end up with is “a woman is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as a woman, which is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as a woman, which is someone who identifies as someone who…” It’s tautological nonsense.

  144. anon[255] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anonymous

    Thanks for the introspection on this, #111.

    I do not remember any sign about the Temp. taking, but I do remember a big one about the masking. Keep in mind, because I didn't write this yet, that one had to be let in - the door was locked otherwise. I am not the type to relish any lawsuit, just because I hate having any unsure business like that hanging over my head - good or bad.

    Note that I did not call the woman herself a retard or hysterical, just that "you people here are hysterical, and this crap is retarded" - like that. I would completely agree that this was not the fat broad's policy herself. I made the comments because someone's got to start instilling some sense in people's heads. I doubt she had any to start with that day.

    Oh yeah, we were about 6 in. away for a while there! I asked a guy locally a year ago, in the midst of this, whether he was hysterical or just doing all this to not get in trouble with the city. Yeah, we were 6" apart for a while too.

    Lastly, this place is no where near where I live, so I don't have to live with it. For that, I am very grateful. A couple of States away, everything is cool.

    Replies: @anon, @Anonymous

    Lastly, this place is no where near where I live, so I don’t have to live with it. For that, I am very grateful. A couple of States away, everything is cool.

    But I’m sure they will remember you, if you ever go back there. Not favorably, either.

    Poor situational awareness, dude.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @anon

    I don't care if they remember me. Why should I? It's in a State far away, and even if down the street from me I wouldn't care. What I meant by "live with" is the hysteria.

    I simply got gas and the rest down the road across the street. That guy at the next place was decent, because he didn't have the personality of a member of the SS or the Stasi. Mask or no mask, why should he care? Not many people actually believe this is the Black Death 2.0.

    "Situational Awareness"? Do you even know what that term means?

  145. @anon
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Lastly, this place is no where near where I live, so I don’t have to live with it. For that, I am very grateful. A couple of States away, everything is cool.

    But I'm sure they will remember you, if you ever go back there. Not favorably, either.

    Poor situational awareness, dude.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I don’t care if they remember me. Why should I? It’s in a State far away, and even if down the street from me I wouldn’t care. What I meant by “live with” is the hysteria.

    I simply got gas and the rest down the road across the street. That guy at the next place was decent, because he didn’t have the personality of a member of the SS or the Stasi. Mask or no mask, why should he care? Not many people actually believe this is the Black Death 2.0.

    “Situational Awareness”? Do you even know what that term means?

  146. @Anonymous
    @Triteleia Laxa


    If you set yourself against people who are actively destroying themselves, you will have near infinite opposition.
     
    I did not say I was interested in setting myself against people who are actively destroying themselves (or anyone else, either).

    Rather, I was attempting to point out that the whole "I'm going to use force to get what I want" business gets a wee bit old after a while. It does not win the "might makes right" crowd any friends, either, but they don't seem to care as much about winning me over as they do about beating me over the head.

    I am also not being nearly as hippy dippy as you think.

     

    One does not have to be "hippy dippy" (your phrase, not mine) to get hold of the wrong end of the stick. Perfectly sensible people do it all the time and it can happen to the best of us.

    I made the observation that if you want people to change, it pays to understand them better than they understand themselves.
     
    If it helps matter along, I am not interested in changing anyone. Rather, I am interested in having people who are keen on beating me over the head with their own worldview to knock it off.

    I am too busy trying to change myself to be interested in changing other people just now, thank you. I would prefer, instead, that they leave me to get on with what I was already doing. Fair enough?

    It is one of life's little peculiarities, but folk always seem to fall in one of two camps: those who want to control other people and those who do not have that desire. It is not difficult to work out which camp the transgender folks fall into.

    With any luck, my writing makes it easy for the reader to discern which camp I fall into.

    (I would hate to think all those school fees were wasted.)

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    It is one of life’s little peculiarities, but folk always seem to fall in one of two camps: those who want to control other people and those who do not have that desire. It is not difficult to work out which camp the transgender folks fall into.

    They fall into different camps, like all groups, but likely fall far more into the change themselves camp, think about it.

  147. @Art Deco
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Do you understand the difference between what I said and what you are saying I said?

    Do you understand the difference you're positing is nonsense? People don't evict tenants, repossess cars, fire problem employees, or put their n'er-do-well children out on the curb to enjoy themselves.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    People, even you, are more complicated that you currently perceive.

  148. Anonymous[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan d Mute
    @notbe


    except when you do that, the powers that be will fire you from your job
     
    They can only fire you if they can afford to fire you. Remember that one you youngsters who aren’t reading. If firing you means immediate revenue losses or future losses that can’t be stemmed, it’s always the other guy who gets it.

    Make sure that you are a producer.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Your antagonist will run to social media or the press and turn your employer’s refusal to fire you into a national controversy. That will cost him way more than you’re worth.

  149. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anonymous

    Thanks for the introspection on this, #111.

    I do not remember any sign about the Temp. taking, but I do remember a big one about the masking. Keep in mind, because I didn't write this yet, that one had to be let in - the door was locked otherwise. I am not the type to relish any lawsuit, just because I hate having any unsure business like that hanging over my head - good or bad.

    Note that I did not call the woman herself a retard or hysterical, just that "you people here are hysterical, and this crap is retarded" - like that. I would completely agree that this was not the fat broad's policy herself. I made the comments because someone's got to start instilling some sense in people's heads. I doubt she had any to start with that day.

    Oh yeah, we were about 6 in. away for a while there! I asked a guy locally a year ago, in the midst of this, whether he was hysterical or just doing all this to not get in trouble with the city. Yeah, we were 6" apart for a while too.

    Lastly, this place is no where near where I live, so I don't have to live with it. For that, I am very grateful. A couple of States away, everything is cool.

    Replies: @anon, @Anonymous

    Oh yeah, we were about 6 in. away for a while there! I asked a guy locally a year ago, in the midst of this, whether he was hysterical or just doing all this to not get in trouble with the city. Yeah, we were 6″ apart for a while too.

    Some of these so-called health measures are hilariously ill-conceived: “I need to get within kissing distance to determine whether you are ill.” Really?

    The locked door business sounds odd, too, and distinctly unfriendly. I should think an open shop would have an open door, but that could just be my “wrecker” tendencies manifesting themselves again.

    In any event, I am glad to hear you got out of there in one piece and will not have to deal with that shop again. I thank my lucky stars that the shopkeepers round my way have yet to feel the need to play nurse.

  150. @Dieter Kief
    @kaganovitch


    “Dieser kerl wahr einer miese säge,aber hatte er Sprachgefühl !”
     
    That about sums it up. Karl Kraus i.s. - brilliant at times in all his loathing and dissecting and disentangling...

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    I meant to ask, is the idiom ‘einer miese säge’ still in use? I heard it often as a child at home.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @kaganovitch

    I just thought about it, before I read your comment. You're still into cutting wood, aren't you?

    I understood it right away and found it - precisely fitting for the Kraus-state-of -mind. But I have never heard somebody say it.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  151. @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    I meant to ask, is the idiom 'einer miese säge' still in use? I heard it often as a child at home.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I just thought about it, before I read your comment. You’re still into cutting wood, aren’t you?

    I understood it right away and found it – precisely fitting for the Kraus-state-of -mind. But I have never heard somebody say it.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Dieter Kief

    My father obm left Germany in 1934 so I assume it was current prewar.

  152. @Dieter Kief
    @kaganovitch

    I just thought about it, before I read your comment. You're still into cutting wood, aren't you?

    I understood it right away and found it - precisely fitting for the Kraus-state-of -mind. But I have never heard somebody say it.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    My father obm left Germany in 1934 so I assume it was current prewar.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?