The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Wokeism Cures Moral Relativism
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

Not surprisingly, veteran iSteve content generator Chanda Prescod-Weinstein is involved.

 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    • Agree: Cato
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @TruthHurts2k21


    Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour.
     
    It's true it required society--other people--for me to learn that there was this weird thing homosexuality out there somewhere.

    But i took it from there! (Pretty sure my homoaversion--it's disgust, not fear--is my own; baked in, natural.)

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @anon
    @TruthHurts2k21

    As somewhat of an inverse, I'm waiting for the trad-right to cancel ancient Greece and Rome...

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415223679/
    https://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Greece-Rome-Sourcebook-Documents/dp/0520234308/

    https://www.amazon.com/Pederasty-Pedagogy-Archaic-William-Armstrong/dp/0252022092/

    And, of course, the seminal, revolutionary work that blew the cover on centuries of whitewashing:
    https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Homosexuality-Updated-New-Postscript/dp/0674362705/

    Replies: @anon

    , @gent
    @TruthHurts2k21

    Homophobia isn't a learned behavior dude, even in civilizations where fucking a dude wasn't a social death sentence, being the guy getting fucked still was.

    , @Mike Tre
    @TruthHurts2k21

    Homophobia is a fake word invented to shout down legitimate arguments presented against buggery, grooming, and the rampant spreading of VD, and now granting flaming homosexual men and transsexuals access to young children to indoctrinate them into accepting all the former as normal.

    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Triteleia Laxa

    , @The Alarmist
    @TruthHurts2k21

    You think that is abhorrent? Ask yourself how G for gay got pushed down the alphabet hierarchy when they had been out front for centuries. Gay folks have less to fear from normies than they do from the Ls and Bs and Ts, etc. all jockeying to move on up.

    , @AceDeuce
    @TruthHurts2k21


    Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour.
     
    And homosexuality isn't?

    Replies: @anon

    , @AndrewR
    @TruthHurts2k21

    I hate the media so much.


    During the lavender scare, gay people were cast, untruthfully, as perverts who might be desperate to keep their sexual orientation secret and thus be susceptible to revealing government secrets under blackmail.
     
    Whether or not practicing homosexuals were/are "perverts" (and the most visible ones certainly are), it's undeniable that they were more vulnerable to blackmail in the early decades of the Cold War. To some extent, even today there are undoubtedly many closeted homosexuals/bisexuals among the ranks of the military and CIA.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Change that Matters
    @TruthHurts2k21

    This post is abhorrent.

  2. When you Boomers have completely consumed yourselves, are the rest of us to infer some Frank Herbert message? Or perhaps more like the far eastern version?

    • Troll: Chris Mallory
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Stan d Mute

    >the rest of us

    The point of the Boomers is to have no rest of us. They'll permit a few younger people to survive, hence the totalitarianism and the disgusting eagerness of those in the know to conform. They're Cronos.

  3. Well they did then. Wokelism is a rebellion against the Poz every bit as much as Roissy was. And the two even share some of the same goals though the Woke would never admit that, which is in part the point. A lot of misdirection involved with wokelism – McIntosh’s Knapsack has a cultural dirty nuke in it.

  4. NASA, caring less about our original mission every day.

    • Replies: @Mike_from_SGV
    @Redneck farmer

    "Antonio Gramsci Memorial National Space Telescope" would be appropriate, in New America.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    , @Forbes
    @Redneck farmer

    Ah, that mission was lost long ago. They couldn't possibly care less today. Government is just a jobs program for special interest voting constituencies--and big money for contractor salaries.

  5. Relativism was for tiresome white hippy philosophers. Black folks are in charge now, and they’re laying down a rap and burning Minneapolis. Nothing relativistic about that. White folks are tagging along, hoping some of the black energy and confidence will rub off on them.

    • Agree: El Dato
    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @rebel yell

    Black folks are not in charge now.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Stan Adams

  6. The moral relativism of the Woke: anything I advocate or desire is moral; anything my enemies advocate or desire is immoral.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @Charlotte

    The moral relativism of the Woke: Everything before yesterday is wrong.

    Replies: @anon

  7. @TruthHurts2k21
    I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @anon, @gent, @Mike Tre, @The Alarmist, @AceDeuce, @AndrewR, @Change that Matters

    Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour.

    It’s true it required society–other people–for me to learn that there was this weird thing homosexuality out there somewhere.

    But i took it from there! (Pretty sure my homoaversion–it’s disgust, not fear–is my own; baked in, natural.)

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @AnotherDad

    There is no doubt whatsoever that younger generations have less aversion/disgust towards homosexual behavior than older generations do. Such aversion/disgust might be natural to some extent, and if it is natural then the extent of it surely varies from person to person, but clearly there is a socially constructed aspect to it to. You grew up at a time when homosexuality was almost universally considered to be a bad thing. It would require a remarkable lack of humility and self-reflection, not to mention a complete ignorance of history and sociology, to assume your attitudes towards these things weren't at least partially a function of the time and place you were born into. You don't need to change your beliefs one iota to acknowledge that, if you were younger, you would more than likely be less hostile towards homosexuality.

    Replies: @Wency

  8. Anonymous[743] • Disclaimer says:

    “Relativity across space, but not time.”

  9. James Webb Space Telescope

    Songs that rocketed up the charts:

    By the Time I Get to Phobos
    Where’s the Plasma, Susie
    Jupiter Lineman
    Galaxton
    Macclesfield Park
    Up, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up and Away
    Hertz That Could Happen
    If You See Me Getting Smaller I’m Leaving the Solar System
    The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

    • Thanks: AnotherDad
    • LOL: Gary in Gramercy
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Reg Cæsar

    Remember when we celebrated accomplishment with song?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rEDQk46qPI

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Reg Cæsar

    Speaking of Jimmy Webb...


    Galveston man charged in five-vehicle wreck near causeway

    "Wesley Achan Durant, 33, was charged with driving while intoxicated with children under the age of 15 in the vehicle..."



    https://www.bustedmugshots.com/texas/galveston/wesley-achan-durant/154529341


    https://arrestfiles.org/publicinfo/wesley-achan-durant
     
  10. @rebel yell
    Relativism was for tiresome white hippy philosophers. Black folks are in charge now, and they're laying down a rap and burning Minneapolis. Nothing relativistic about that. White folks are tagging along, hoping some of the black energy and confidence will rub off on them.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    Black folks are not in charge now.

    • Agree: gandydancer
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @JimDandy

    They're certainly not running the show but they are the right hand men of the boss.

    , @Stan Adams
    @JimDandy

    Neither is this guy:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1veW1s24Xo

  11. anon[514] • Disclaimer says:
    @TruthHurts2k21
    I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @anon, @gent, @Mike Tre, @The Alarmist, @AceDeuce, @AndrewR, @Change that Matters

    As somewhat of an inverse, I’m waiting for the trad-right to cancel ancient Greece and Rome…



    [MORE]

    And, of course, the seminal, revolutionary work that blew the cover on centuries of whitewashing:

    • Replies: @anon
    @anon

    Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents by Thomas K. Hubbard (Editor)


    The most important primary texts on homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome are translated into modern, explicit English and collected together for the first time in this comprehensive sourcebook. Covering an extensive period―from the earliest Greek texts in the late seventh century b.c.e. to Greco-Roman texts of the third and fourth centuries c.e.―the volume includes well-known writings by Plato, Sappho, Aeschines, Catullus, and Juvenal, as well as less well known but highly relevant and intriguing texts such as graffiti, comic fragments, magical papyri, medical treatises, and selected artistic evidence. These fluently translated texts, together with Thomas K. Hubbard's valuable introductions, clearly show that there was in fact no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today.
     

    Images of Ancient Greek Pederasty: Boys were their Gods by Andrew Lear (Author), Eva Cantarella (Author)

    This lavishly illustrated book brings together, for the first time, all of the different ways in which vase-painting portrays or refers to pederasty, from scenes of courtship, foreplay, and sex, to scenes of Zeus with his boy-love Ganymede, to painted inscriptions praising the beauty of boys. The book shows how painters used the language of vase-painting to cast pederasty in an idealizing light, portraying it as part of a world in which beautiful elite males display praiseworthy attitudes, such as moderation, and engage in approved activities, such as hunting, athletics, and the symposium. The book also incorporates a comprehensive catalogue of relevant vase-paintings, compiled by noted archaeologist Keith DeVries. It is the most comprehensive treatment available of an institution that has few modern parallels.
     
  12. Homophobia is a necessary expression of homosexuality. The most homophobic of institutions will always be the most homosexual: for example the Catholic Church. Every single time a prominent preacher or GOP senator goes off on a homophobic rant, you KNOW that within six months the bundle of sticks will get caught hoofing meth with a gay hooker. They have even done Clockwork Orange style interrogations and it turns out the dudes professing the most homophobia got the most wood when forced to watch gay porn. The USSR recognising the disproportionate gayness of the Nazi hierarchy and declared that homosexuality was a symptom of fascism, and thus exposed their own latent homosexuality.

    Attacking so called moral relativism is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that there is no such thing as moral absolutism. Yes, people may profess to their enemies the absolute universality of morals, do onto others, make no rule that you would not apply to yourself, etc, etc. But the minute push comes to shove, people will revert to moral perspectivism, they will morally approve whatever they think helps the group they want to win. Any group that actually ever did truly apply moral absolutism to themselves would have long ago ended up in the societal dustbin of history.

    • Replies: @Catdog
    @Torn and Frayed

    You're an arachnophobe huh I guess you must really want to have sex with spiders

    , @James J O'Meara
    @Torn and Frayed

    'Any group that actually ever did truly apply moral absolutism to themselves would have long ago ended up in the societal dustbin of history."

    I'm reminded of my favorite quote from an academic philosopher, Richard Taylor, attacking Kant in his book Good and Evil:

    "If anyone honestly professed to guiding his life by the Categorical Imperative, I would regard him with the same horror as I would if he had confessed to habitually drowning small children, just to watch them squirm."

  13. The only appropriate response is to scrap the telescope project entirely and send into orbit a monument to alphabet people instead.

  14. • Replies: @Pericles
    @MEH 0910

    Opinion: Scientific American needs to be renamed to Woke American.

    , @Herp McDerp
    @MEH 0910

    How shocking! James Webb worked for the federal government and obeyed the law. The four authors don't present convincing evidence that he did so zealously and enthusiastically. Why not disavow other things named after other office-holders of that era who behaved similarly, such as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Space Center?

  15. During the lavender scare, gay people were cast, untruthfully, as perverts who might be desperate to keep their sexual orientation secret and thus be susceptible to revealing government secrets under blackmail. Its epicentre was the Department of State, which handles foreign policy.

    There were so many ways that sentence might have been written that didn’t imply that gay people in the 40s/50s in the US were only too happy to be outed.

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @martin_2
    @Altai

    Blackmail was an issue. The threat to national security via blackmail a la The Profumo Affair was advanced as a supporting argument by those who wanted homosexuality decriminalised.

    Replies: @Forbes, @Travis

    , @AndrewR
    @Altai

    Exactly. The media is run by double digit IQ clowns who only think in buzzwords and slogans.

  16. Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don’t need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.

    It has been the same since Luther introduced relativism in the Western culture. He said that everybody could interpret the Bible as he saw fit (this relativism was directed against the Pope). When peasants revolted based on their own interpretation of the Bible, Luther told the princes to kill these mad dogs. The relativism was only about the Pope, Luther’s interpretation was absolute.

    The French Revolution wanted liberty, equality and fraternity (relativism) against the Catholic King of France. When they got the power, they denied this for the peasants of La Vendée and repressed the Catholic rebellion without qualms.

    The Founding Fathers wanted liberty (this is relativism) against the King of England, who was taxing them too much. When the Whiskey rebellion rebelled against the Founding Fathers because of excessive taxes, the Founding Fathers repressed the rebellion mercilessly.

    The LGBTI wanted freedom (relativism). No police in every bed. Live and let live. Now that they have been adopted by TPTB, they want every speech to be controlled so they only get praise.

    It is: “your beliefs are relative, my beliefs are absolute”. Relativism for thee but not for me. Relativism is only a weapon towards the enemy. It is not meant to be taken seriously. The enemy that takes it seriously loses. Every. Single. Time.

    • Agree: megabar, Forbes, InnerCynic
    • Thanks: V. Hickel
    • Replies: @Altai
    @imnobody00


    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don’t need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.
     
    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick

    This article where the old head of the ACLU, Ira Glasser, bemoans the current leadership of the ACLU is a classic example. The same sort of people, just born in different generations. Glasser, doesn't or claims not to understand what happened.

    In truth it's simple, when Glass led the ACLU, freedom of speech benefited groups and speech he liked, broadly. Today his equivalents understand the situation to be the opposite and now the ACLU is in the business of suppressing speech and information.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/aclu-blocks-womans-request-for-data-on-numbers-of-transgender-inmates-in-womens-prisons

    Glasser and his friends rarely encountered anybody who wasn’t Jewish, much less Black, within the 12-block neighborhood of East Flatbush that comprised the world of their childhood (New York City, he says in the film, was less the fabled “melting pot” of popular American sentiment than “a collection of insular segregated tribes”).

    ...

    No American minority had reaped more from its faith in the country’s professed commitment to pluralism and tolerance than the Jews, a gift they repaid many times over by supporting the institutions—the universities, the Democratic Party, the ACLU—which upheld them. In the same way Lenny Bruce classified Ray Charles and fruit salad as Jewish (while claiming that “Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it”), so the ACLU was seen as scrappy, authentic, and emblematic of an underdog quality. As Bruce might have put it: the ACLU, Jewish; the McCarthyite American Jewish League Against Communism, goyish.
     
    That the article is published in Tablet makes the context all the more clear. A lot of older Jews political aesthetic just ossified and they haven't worked out the world has changed yet. Maybe Glasser really does bemoan the ACLU no longer being about protecting everyone's freedom of speech but as the article makes clear, his motivation wasn't one of abstract values but of who/whom benefited from those policies.

    But while listening to play-by-play announcer Red Barber’s report about the Dodgers’ road trip to St. Louis, then the southernmost city in the National League, they understood two important things: that Jackie Robinson was a god, and that the treatment he endured—the racist invective from Cardinals fans, the segregation that kept him from eating in the same restaurants or sleeping in the same hotels as his teammates—constituted a form of blasphemy.

    A hatred of Jim Crow and a passion for civil rights developed from Glasser’s dedication to the Dodgers, as did a theory of the nature of sports fandom itself: If rooting for the Dodgers situated one on the right side of what was then the country’s central moral struggle, then cheering for the Yankees (the third to last team to hire a Black player) signified a belief in “oil depletion allowances.” Writing a quarter century after his beloved team abandoned Brooklyn for sunnier Los Angeles and Ebbets was razed to the ground, Glasser observed that “Dodger fans became egalitarians who would often be found working at the ACLU.”
     

    Replies: @anon, @gandydancer

    , @sj2001
    @imnobody00

    You nailed it. My favorite example is the "Free Speech Movement" starting at Berkeley in the early 60s. Once the leftists completed the tearing down of the old university system and took power, they promptly started setting up the college speech codes we see everywhere today.

    Replies: @Prester John

    , @InnerCynic
    @imnobody00

    I've come to the conclusion that Luther was a "company man", much like Trump or even someone as seemingly unlikely as Yasser Arafat. His mission was to stir the pot and see how the "unfaithful" would bubble up and thus be exposed to TPTB for what they truly believed and thus targeted for extermination. It also served as a means to reinvigorate the Company and give them something to rally around while diddling choir boys on the side. All rather sordid. Head fakes, disinformation, and a culture of lies have only been polished and refined over the centuries. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

    , @Prester John
    @imnobody00

    What you have accurately described are examples of hypocrisy writ large. And it never fails to manifest itself in some fashion.

    , @James J O'Meara
    @imnobody00

    "Luther introduced relativism in the Western culture. He said that everybody could interpret the Bible as he saw fit ..."

    Complete nonsense. "Private interpretation" was anathema to him. Luther argued that the Bible, as God's word, was a message -- A message, not messages -- to mankind, and should -- and could -- be read like any other message; trying to understand the meaning of words, cultural context, etc. but not relying on "Tradition" or cryptography (he hated the Book of Revelation).

    His "grammatico-historical method" was the origin of today's Higher Criticism. But even Fundamentalists believe you must be given Faith by God to correctly understand the text; it's not up for grabs.

    The plethora of denominations and sects may be an unfortunate consequence, -- turns out trying to make sense of a book of Bronze Age fairy tales is hard -- but it was by no means his intention.

  17. • LOL: The Alarmist, Escher
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Bardon Kaldian


    From Apollo 13 onward, the Commaders had arm, leg, and helmet stripes on their suits so that they could be distinguished from the LMPs in mission photographs. The following in an extract from a 1996 letter from UK researcher Keith Wilson on the broader topic of Apollo 11 photography:
    "Brian Duff was head of Public Affairs at JSC (then MSFC) at the time of Apollo 11. He actually only took up the job ten weeks before Apollo 11. In a letter to me ... Duff remembers being in the photo lab in the LRL (Lunar Receiving Lab) when the Apollo 11 film was displayed soon after being developed. 'It was full of self-appointed photograph selectors, many of whom outranked me'."
    "Duff was under great pressure to make a selection because the world's media were desperate for the material. Both 70 mm and motion picture were laid out on light tables in long strips. 'Everyone was yelling and finally somebody said shouldn't we try to get a picture of the first man on the Moon?' They started looking for the best shot of Armstrong. Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong."

    The existence of Hasselblad photos of Neil during the Apollo 11 is discussed in detail elsewhere in the ALSJ. Wilson continues:
    "During that evening in the photo lab ... a decision was made to include some sort of astronaut identification on future missions. It was Brian Duff who was partly responsible for the inclusion of stripes on the CDR's spacesuit on later missions - too late for Apollo 12. For 24 hours they were called the 'Public Affairs Stripes' before being renamed the 'Commander's Stripes'."


    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-CDRStripes.html
     
  18. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/sciam/status/1366409731137540106

    Replies: @Pericles, @Herp McDerp

    Opinion: Scientific American needs to be renamed to Woke American.

    • Agree: donut
  19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Prescod-Weinstein

    Aha…Okay

    Prescod-Weinstein is queer and agender. She is married to a lawyer. She has no children.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Prescod-Weinstein is queer and agender. She It is married to a lawyer. She It has no children.
     
    There, fixed it for ya’. Don’t want the woke police banging down your door for misgendering it.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Bardon Kaldian


    She has no children.
     
    Natural selection in action!
    , @AnotherDad
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Prescod-Weinstein is queer and agender. She is married to a lawyer. She has no children.
     
    I especially appreciate that she-it has no children.

    This might not tell now. But down the road in old age--while she-it won't be changing it's opinions, there may be some unease and realization settling in.

    I'm generally a "nice guy". But over the last decade--in a nod to old age--allowed myself to wish my enemies ill and enjoy a little schadenfreude at any misfortune befalling them (more please!) These are evil people who are making my life, my kids' lives, my posterity's lives worse; who are destroying Western Civilization, the greatest civilization man has created so far.

    And then, of course, there's genes. Let's get their genes cancelled ASAP.
  20. @TruthHurts2k21
    I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @anon, @gent, @Mike Tre, @The Alarmist, @AceDeuce, @AndrewR, @Change that Matters

    Homophobia isn’t a learned behavior dude, even in civilizations where fucking a dude wasn’t a social death sentence, being the guy getting fucked still was.

  21. @TruthHurts2k21
    I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @anon, @gent, @Mike Tre, @The Alarmist, @AceDeuce, @AndrewR, @Change that Matters

    Homophobia is a fake word invented to shout down legitimate arguments presented against buggery, grooming, and the rampant spreading of VD, and now granting flaming homosexual men and transsexuals access to young children to indoctrinate them into accepting all the former as normal.

    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Mike Tre


    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.
     
    I think this is spot on. It takes a village to keep people--men specifically--from having the natural reaction to homosexuality.

    But, i do wonder about the HBD aspect.

    I'm a particular kind of guy. I was always interested in girls--far earlier than puberty. I was sweet on a girl in kindergarten. I had a girlfriend in elementary school. (Who unfortunately passed away years ago in her late 40s.) Don't know if that's relevant, but i suspect it is.

    And obviously there's the issue of innate psychological traits. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt have shown that conservatives have more balanced valuation of different moral emotions. And one of those is disgust. (Which is ranked very low for lefties.)

    Disgust is certainly my reaction to male homosexuals. And it's also my reaction--or at least how i'd express my reaction--to the whole edifice of minoritarianism, the all the whiny complaining, all their lying, their excuse making, their PC minders and goons, and their tedious virtue signaling. Disgust. Although "contempt" and "hatred" are probably their in the mix.

    My feeling about homosexuals is probably best summed up by "oh, just go away!"

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Reg Cæsar, @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mike Tre


    Homophobia is a fake word
     
    All words are "fake", but I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena, even if it is frequently misused.

    It is a "weaponised" or "politicised" term.

    rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.
     
    Thanks Mother Nature.

    Replies: @anon, @Mike Tre

  22. @TruthHurts2k21
    I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @anon, @gent, @Mike Tre, @The Alarmist, @AceDeuce, @AndrewR, @Change that Matters

    You think that is abhorrent? Ask yourself how G for gay got pushed down the alphabet hierarchy when they had been out front for centuries. Gay folks have less to fear from normies than they do from the Ls and Bs and Ts, etc. all jockeying to move on up.

  23. @imnobody00
    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don't need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.

    It has been the same since Luther introduced relativism in the Western culture. He said that everybody could interpret the Bible as he saw fit (this relativism was directed against the Pope). When peasants revolted based on their own interpretation of the Bible, Luther told the princes to kill these mad dogs. The relativism was only about the Pope, Luther's interpretation was absolute.

    The French Revolution wanted liberty, equality and fraternity (relativism) against the Catholic King of France. When they got the power, they denied this for the peasants of La Vendée and repressed the Catholic rebellion without qualms.

    The Founding Fathers wanted liberty (this is relativism) against the King of England, who was taxing them too much. When the Whiskey rebellion rebelled against the Founding Fathers because of excessive taxes, the Founding Fathers repressed the rebellion mercilessly.

    The LGBTI wanted freedom (relativism). No police in every bed. Live and let live. Now that they have been adopted by TPTB, they want every speech to be controlled so they only get praise.

    It is: "your beliefs are relative, my beliefs are absolute". Relativism for thee but not for me. Relativism is only a weapon towards the enemy. It is not meant to be taken seriously. The enemy that takes it seriously loses. Every. Single. Time.

    Replies: @Altai, @sj2001, @InnerCynic, @Prester John, @James J O'Meara

    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don’t need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick

    This article where the old head of the ACLU, Ira Glasser, bemoans the current leadership of the ACLU is a classic example. The same sort of people, just born in different generations. Glasser, doesn’t or claims not to understand what happened.

    In truth it’s simple, when Glass led the ACLU, freedom of speech benefited groups and speech he liked, broadly. Today his equivalents understand the situation to be the opposite and now the ACLU is in the business of suppressing speech and information.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/aclu-blocks-womans-request-for-data-on-numbers-of-transgender-inmates-in-womens-prisons

    Glasser and his friends rarely encountered anybody who wasn’t Jewish, much less Black, within the 12-block neighborhood of East Flatbush that comprised the world of their childhood (New York City, he says in the film, was less the fabled “melting pot” of popular American sentiment than “a collection of insular segregated tribes”).

    No American minority had reaped more from its faith in the country’s professed commitment to pluralism and tolerance than the Jews, a gift they repaid many times over by supporting the institutions—the universities, the Democratic Party, the ACLU—which upheld them. In the same way Lenny Bruce classified Ray Charles and fruit salad as Jewish (while claiming that “Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it”), so the ACLU was seen as scrappy, authentic, and emblematic of an underdog quality. As Bruce might have put it: the ACLU, Jewish; the McCarthyite American Jewish League Against Communism, goyish.

    That the article is published in Tablet makes the context all the more clear. A lot of older Jews political aesthetic just ossified and they haven’t worked out the world has changed yet. Maybe Glasser really does bemoan the ACLU no longer being about protecting everyone’s freedom of speech but as the article makes clear, his motivation wasn’t one of abstract values but of who/whom benefited from those policies.

    But while listening to play-by-play announcer Red Barber’s report about the Dodgers’ road trip to St. Louis, then the southernmost city in the National League, they understood two important things: that Jackie Robinson was a god, and that the treatment he endured—the racist invective from Cardinals fans, the segregation that kept him from eating in the same restaurants or sleeping in the same hotels as his teammates—constituted a form of blasphemy.

    A hatred of Jim Crow and a passion for civil rights developed from Glasser’s dedication to the Dodgers, as did a theory of the nature of sports fandom itself: If rooting for the Dodgers situated one on the right side of what was then the country’s central moral struggle, then cheering for the Yankees (the third to last team to hire a Black player) signified a belief in “oil depletion allowances.” Writing a quarter century after his beloved team abandoned Brooklyn for sunnier Los Angeles and Ebbets was razed to the ground, Glasser observed that “Dodger fans became egalitarians who would often be found working at the ACLU.”

    • Thanks: El Dato
    • Replies: @anon
    @Altai


    when Glass led the ACLU, freedom of speech benefited groups and speech he liked, broadly. Today his equivalents understand the situation to be the opposite and now the ACLU is in the business of suppressing speech and information.
     
    Tested sufficiently, how many individuals, groups, movements, or enterprises, consistently live-up to their purported principles at all times, even at the direct and costly expense of their perceived or manifest interests?

    Which, of the two, is, overwhelmingly, the primary motivation behind and driver of human behavior: (a) interests or (b) purported principles? How often are the latter little, if any more than convenient, conscience-assuaging, aesthetically correct, and expedient rationalizations, justifications, and pretexts for the pursuit of the former (interests)?

    Replies: @Altai, @gandydancer

    , @gandydancer
    @Altai

    I'm not sure where that first blockquote comes from, but it's not in the Tablet article that you link to immediately afterwards. Nor does duckduckgo find it. So I still have no idea what TPTB is an acronym for.

    Am I supposed to think that Glasser's advocacy of free speech, or free speech itself, is bad because he was (allegedly) motivated to advocate for it by self-interest or Tribal self interest?

  24. @Bardon Kaldian
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Prescod-Weinstein

    Aha...Okay

    Prescod-Weinstein is queer and agender. She is married to a lawyer. She has no children.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jus' Sayin'..., @AnotherDad

    Prescod-Weinstein is queer and agender. She It is married to a lawyer. She It has no children.

    There, fixed it for ya’. Don’t want the woke police banging down your door for misgendering it.

  25. @TruthHurts2k21
    I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @anon, @gent, @Mike Tre, @The Alarmist, @AceDeuce, @AndrewR, @Change that Matters

    Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour.

    And homosexuality isn’t?

    • Agree: InnerCynic
    • Replies: @anon
    @AceDeuce



    Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour.
     
    And homosexuality isn’t?
     
    Do you mean voluntary behavior or involuntary feelings? Either or both can be included under the vague term "homosexuality".
    The shortest answer to your question, for both phenomena (feelings and behavior) would be: 'it depends' or 'it can be'.

    Re: feelings:
    Even if a genetic component to these were to be discovered, would that preclude the possible effect of environmental influences? Specifically, influences during an individual's formative years having a profound, even decisive effect on the ultimate direction of his sexuality? Some time back, a commenter here suggested that male homoeroticism [1] may span a spectrum, from at least nearly completely innate and perhaps even immutable (or at least almost immutable) in some individuals, to nearly or even completely environmental and malleable in others.

    Re: behavior:

    This varies, often wildly, both by individual, as well as by particular behavior. I have read a number of (mostly self-reported) accounts that would suggest that any number of adolescent males may find certain homoerotic behaviors of a non-penetrative variety, at least, quite intuitive and natural. Can such cases of homoerotic intimacy-- ones in which there is no penetration, and both consent as well as pleasure are fully and unequivocally mutual-- be objectively viewed as inherently depraved or unwholesome, per se? Categorically?

    Is the real danger of such frolicking (to the extent there is one), not, rather, that through such indulgence, the youths may be cultivating within themselves an enduring fancy, a fetish, that ultimately, will yield only bitter fruits? Surely the greatest danger for a still-impressionable youth would be for him to become illusioned by the pernicious falsehood that any form of homoerotic intimacy, or for that matter, anything, can provide the unique fulfillment that heterosexual marriage and family can. Are there some boys whose homoeroticism will ultimately, despite their best efforts, not allow them the attraction to, and comfort and confidence with the opposite sex that is necessary for said goal to be obtainable? There may be, alas. But let us never condemn anyone who may still have a chance, who is still in his formative years, by depriving him of it.

    [1] A more precise word that refers specifically to feelings.
  26. The Minnesota Dept of Health is investigating a number of cases of Covid diagnosed in a group of travelers who all were on vacation in Provincetown, MA. No word on how many were HIV positive or if they used condoms during their activities. Most were vaccinated, according to the news story.

  27. It’s ultimately anti-White. So sure, when it helps to erode White countries by pushing moral relativism, they do that. And when they get enough power to use new techniques to harm Whites, ones that involve rigid obedience to Whatever The Rules Are Today, they push that.

    • Agree: Rosie
  28. @TruthHurts2k21
    I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @anon, @gent, @Mike Tre, @The Alarmist, @AceDeuce, @AndrewR, @Change that Matters

    I hate the media so much.

    During the lavender scare, gay people were cast, untruthfully, as perverts who might be desperate to keep their sexual orientation secret and thus be susceptible to revealing government secrets under blackmail.

    Whether or not practicing homosexuals were/are “perverts” (and the most visible ones certainly are), it’s undeniable that they were more vulnerable to blackmail in the early decades of the Cold War. To some extent, even today there are undoubtedly many closeted homosexuals/bisexuals among the ranks of the military and CIA.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @AndrewR

    When I applied to the Foreign Service in the 1980s, we were told that they were very wary about hiring immigrants, or children of immigrants, from certain places, despite the constant desperate need for people fluent in the languages. That's because such individuals might be vulnerable to pressure put on relatives back home.

    So blackmail was always a credible threat, even when sex wasn't involved at all.

  29. When will the leftists start attacking Muslims for their anti-homosexual views?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco


    When will the leftists start attacking Muslims for their anti-homosexual views?
     
    "Islam is right about gays."

    Likewise, they are right about democracy, Hollywood, marriage, Jews, and, of course, women. You could cover your rear bumper with such ambiguous memes.

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61sJHzXF2GL._AC_SX466_.jpg

    Replies: @Rosie

  30. @AnotherDad
    @TruthHurts2k21


    Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour.
     
    It's true it required society--other people--for me to learn that there was this weird thing homosexuality out there somewhere.

    But i took it from there! (Pretty sure my homoaversion--it's disgust, not fear--is my own; baked in, natural.)

    Replies: @AndrewR

    There is no doubt whatsoever that younger generations have less aversion/disgust towards homosexual behavior than older generations do. Such aversion/disgust might be natural to some extent, and if it is natural then the extent of it surely varies from person to person, but clearly there is a socially constructed aspect to it to. You grew up at a time when homosexuality was almost universally considered to be a bad thing. It would require a remarkable lack of humility and self-reflection, not to mention a complete ignorance of history and sociology, to assume your attitudes towards these things weren’t at least partially a function of the time and place you were born into. You don’t need to change your beliefs one iota to acknowledge that, if you were younger, you would more than likely be less hostile towards homosexuality.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @AndrewR

    I don't think the aversion needs to be built up at all, but it can be suppressed.

    That said, I think more aversion exists under the surface than is sometimes assumed. I recall roughly 15 years ago, hanging out with a leftist fellow Millennial in San Francisco (a friend of a friend) who assumed that I, too, was a leftist. And out of the blue, after a few beers, he started confiding in me (while repeatedly assuring me of his leftist credentials) that he really, really didn't want to see gay men engaging in PDAs.

    There's also still not all that much explicit gay male affection happening on TV, even on shows aimed at younger generations that feature lots of gay characters (they're much more OK with showing lesbian affection, which doesn't trigger the disgust reflex).

    Replies: @AndrewR

  31. @Altai

    During the lavender scare, gay people were cast, untruthfully, as perverts who might be desperate to keep their sexual orientation secret and thus be susceptible to revealing government secrets under blackmail. Its epicentre was the Department of State, which handles foreign policy.
     
    There were so many ways that sentence might have been written that didn't imply that gay people in the 40s/50s in the US were only too happy to be outed.

    Replies: @martin_2, @AndrewR

    Blackmail was an issue. The threat to national security via blackmail a la The Profumo Affair was advanced as a supporting argument by those who wanted homosexuality decriminalised.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @martin_2

    Cambridge Five's Guy Burgess, apparently, wasn't threatened by blackmail, being "outed," or any such-like lavender scare...

    , @Travis
    @martin_2

    exactly correct. Blackmail was a serious issue when homosexuality was considered deviant behavior by most people and even the medical community considered it a form of mental illness.

    Even communists were strongly opposed to gays. Homosexuality was seen as ‘a bourgeois degeneracy’. Communist Parties throughout the world persecuted homosexuals, incarcerated sodomites and put them in insane asylums or jailed them for being sexual deviants and they were prohibited from joining the communist party in the Soviet Union as homosexuality was linked to fascism due to the many homosexual Nazi party members.

  32. @JimDandy
    @rebel yell

    Black folks are not in charge now.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Stan Adams

    They’re certainly not running the show but they are the right hand men of the boss.

  33. anon[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Altai
    @imnobody00


    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don’t need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.
     
    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick

    This article where the old head of the ACLU, Ira Glasser, bemoans the current leadership of the ACLU is a classic example. The same sort of people, just born in different generations. Glasser, doesn't or claims not to understand what happened.

    In truth it's simple, when Glass led the ACLU, freedom of speech benefited groups and speech he liked, broadly. Today his equivalents understand the situation to be the opposite and now the ACLU is in the business of suppressing speech and information.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/aclu-blocks-womans-request-for-data-on-numbers-of-transgender-inmates-in-womens-prisons

    Glasser and his friends rarely encountered anybody who wasn’t Jewish, much less Black, within the 12-block neighborhood of East Flatbush that comprised the world of their childhood (New York City, he says in the film, was less the fabled “melting pot” of popular American sentiment than “a collection of insular segregated tribes”).

    ...

    No American minority had reaped more from its faith in the country’s professed commitment to pluralism and tolerance than the Jews, a gift they repaid many times over by supporting the institutions—the universities, the Democratic Party, the ACLU—which upheld them. In the same way Lenny Bruce classified Ray Charles and fruit salad as Jewish (while claiming that “Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it”), so the ACLU was seen as scrappy, authentic, and emblematic of an underdog quality. As Bruce might have put it: the ACLU, Jewish; the McCarthyite American Jewish League Against Communism, goyish.
     
    That the article is published in Tablet makes the context all the more clear. A lot of older Jews political aesthetic just ossified and they haven't worked out the world has changed yet. Maybe Glasser really does bemoan the ACLU no longer being about protecting everyone's freedom of speech but as the article makes clear, his motivation wasn't one of abstract values but of who/whom benefited from those policies.

    But while listening to play-by-play announcer Red Barber’s report about the Dodgers’ road trip to St. Louis, then the southernmost city in the National League, they understood two important things: that Jackie Robinson was a god, and that the treatment he endured—the racist invective from Cardinals fans, the segregation that kept him from eating in the same restaurants or sleeping in the same hotels as his teammates—constituted a form of blasphemy.

    A hatred of Jim Crow and a passion for civil rights developed from Glasser’s dedication to the Dodgers, as did a theory of the nature of sports fandom itself: If rooting for the Dodgers situated one on the right side of what was then the country’s central moral struggle, then cheering for the Yankees (the third to last team to hire a Black player) signified a belief in “oil depletion allowances.” Writing a quarter century after his beloved team abandoned Brooklyn for sunnier Los Angeles and Ebbets was razed to the ground, Glasser observed that “Dodger fans became egalitarians who would often be found working at the ACLU.”
     

    Replies: @anon, @gandydancer

    when Glass led the ACLU, freedom of speech benefited groups and speech he liked, broadly. Today his equivalents understand the situation to be the opposite and now the ACLU is in the business of suppressing speech and information.

    Tested sufficiently, how many individuals, groups, movements, or enterprises, consistently live-up to their purported principles at all times, even at the direct and costly expense of their perceived or manifest interests?

    Which, of the two, is, overwhelmingly, the primary motivation behind and driver of human behavior: (a) interests or (b) purported principles? How often are the latter little, if any more than convenient, conscience-assuaging, aesthetically correct, and expedient rationalizations, justifications, and pretexts for the pursuit of the former (interests)?

    • Agree: Torn and Frayed
    • Replies: @Altai
    @anon

    A great many North West Europeans even when they don't like the results, they are moral sacrifices to them.

    , @gandydancer
    @anon

    Altai's words which you blockquote in [31] fail to make an obvious distinction. His ACLU was, I presume, broadly pro-Israeli. Yet the ACLU is not now in the business of suppressing speech by the likes of Ilhan Omar or AOC. So the idea that the ACLU has changed simply to track "manifest" self-interest is obtuse.

    I notice that you unexpectedly left off a couple of the parens pairs around "(interests)". Is that to lower the profile of your antisemitism?

    Replies: @gandydancer

  34. Che Guevara was a notorious homophobe. He campaigned to have gay people placed in prison, and when they were interned, they were treated worse than the rest of the prisoners. Che referred to gays as “scum” and perverts. Che Guevara established the first Cuban concentration camp in Guanahacabibes in 1960. In the camp where homosexuals were sent, there was a sign which said ˜Work Will Make You Men.’ Many of them died; others were tortured or raped. The regime that Che Guevara co-founded is the only one in the Western Hemisphere to have herded gays into forced labor camps.

    yet the woke still admire Che and continue to buy t-shirts with his image.

    • Replies: @Gordo
    @Travis


    The regime that Che Guevara co-founded is the only one in the Western Hemisphere to have herded gays into forced labor camps. yet the woke still admire Che and continue to buy t-shirts with his image.
     
    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson

    That is why the left wins, we are playing cricket and they are throwing hand grenades.
    , @Catdog
    @Travis

    Good.

    , @El Dato
    @Travis

    Is this why the US still trying to overthrow the Cuban Regime per fas et nefas?

    , @El Dato
    @Travis

    More pointers on this

    https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/34404/did-che-guevara-help-send-gay-people-to-labor-camps-also-called-umap

  35. Left-wing relativism was a phase that is disappearing as the cultural Left consolidates power.

    https://unherd.com/2021/07/the-wests-cultural-revolution-is-over/
    “Relativism is a position you employ when you’re weak, to be abandoned when you win. On a wide range of issues, including race and gender, the Right has been more relativist for some time. Before the 1968 revolution those outside of power (the Left) argued for moral relativism, those in power (the Right) argued for moral absolutism. Now it is the opposite.”

    (BTW, everyone knows, but it’s worth restating: cultural Woke Leftism is not the same thing as economic Leftism. Perhaps the former will evolve into the latter–“You’ll Own Nothing and You’ll Be Happy.” But let’s note that old-fashioned Reds would probably not recognize the CNN-Left as fellow travelers.)

    • Agree: gandydancer
  36. It doesn’t cure, it kills.

  37. Their morality is centered around power and what’s needed to achieve it.

    So they will condemn and persecute Christians for their “homophobia” and “sexism” but will say nothing about Muslims because the former represents a real competition for the Left’s secular religion while the latter is just another useful tool for achieving power. Once Islam becomes a real menace for their plans they will target their followers as well.

    They will even use our own Christian and common sense values to condemn us for our failings, but will forgive their own for failing to strictly follow their woke rules (as long as they are useful, such as a powerful politician, famous artist or a minority with lots of diversity points).

    It’s morality in the service of removing competitors for power.

  38. @imnobody00
    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don't need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.

    It has been the same since Luther introduced relativism in the Western culture. He said that everybody could interpret the Bible as he saw fit (this relativism was directed against the Pope). When peasants revolted based on their own interpretation of the Bible, Luther told the princes to kill these mad dogs. The relativism was only about the Pope, Luther's interpretation was absolute.

    The French Revolution wanted liberty, equality and fraternity (relativism) against the Catholic King of France. When they got the power, they denied this for the peasants of La Vendée and repressed the Catholic rebellion without qualms.

    The Founding Fathers wanted liberty (this is relativism) against the King of England, who was taxing them too much. When the Whiskey rebellion rebelled against the Founding Fathers because of excessive taxes, the Founding Fathers repressed the rebellion mercilessly.

    The LGBTI wanted freedom (relativism). No police in every bed. Live and let live. Now that they have been adopted by TPTB, they want every speech to be controlled so they only get praise.

    It is: "your beliefs are relative, my beliefs are absolute". Relativism for thee but not for me. Relativism is only a weapon towards the enemy. It is not meant to be taken seriously. The enemy that takes it seriously loses. Every. Single. Time.

    Replies: @Altai, @sj2001, @InnerCynic, @Prester John, @James J O'Meara

    You nailed it. My favorite example is the “Free Speech Movement” starting at Berkeley in the early 60s. Once the leftists completed the tearing down of the old university system and took power, they promptly started setting up the college speech codes we see everywhere today.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @sj2001

    Of course. The list goes on and on. JD Salinger's Holden Caulfield wasn't far wrong when he said that the world was filled with phonies.

  39. Same thing is eventually going to happen Manchin once he leaves office and is no longer practically useful (i.e. counting noses) to them.

    I’ve always thought it strange that “conservative” Democrats couldn’t see the writing on the wall.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @JR Ewing

    He’s leaving office like FDR did and not before.

  40. MSRNC is a Derp State group blog. We know what they did to the Branch Davidians, kids and all.

    This is not a drill.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Desiderius

    It shouldn't even get to that point though: Pelosi deliberately violated a House practice which had been universally understood and obeyed since the late nineteenth century, probably before. A minority party can put who they want on a committee. This committee is going to be garbage anyway, but the leadership is so elderly, they can't do anything properly any more. Democrats probably cheat when they sharpen pencils.

  41. @Redneck farmer
    NASA, caring less about our original mission every day.

    Replies: @Mike_from_SGV, @Forbes

    “Antonio Gramsci Memorial National Space Telescope” would be appropriate, in New America.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Mike_from_SGV

    If we're going to go on naming things like big telescopes after actual people (as opposed to the actual scientist-sperg inclinations like calling them the VLA -- the "Very Large Array", I'm not joking).....

    I would suggest naming something after Professor Owen Gingrich, who taught for many years the Introduction to Astronomy/Intro to History of Science core course at Harvard, and thus gave many soon-to-be-influential young minds their first taste, and final gasp, of !!Science!! (pace Thomas Dolby). (1)

    He was sort of famous for comedically exiting his lectures with a demonstration of Newton's laws of motion, by sitting in an office chair and then setting off a fire extinguisher, the force of which sent him exiting stage left.

    (1) I'm one of those annoying wags who dutifully got a 780 score on the math part of the SAT, and then swore up and down that I never, EVER wanted to see another math equation ever again in my life, not even simple arithmetic. I wonder how much of the public discursive culture has been warped by well-educated people with hang-ups like that.

  42. @Redneck farmer
    NASA, caring less about our original mission every day.

    Replies: @Mike_from_SGV, @Forbes

    Ah, that mission was lost long ago. They couldn’t possibly care less today. Government is just a jobs program for special interest voting constituencies–and big money for contractor salaries.

  43. @Charlotte
    The moral relativism of the Woke: anything I advocate or desire is moral; anything my enemies advocate or desire is immoral.

    Replies: @Forbes

    The moral relativism of the Woke: Everything before yesterday is wrong.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Forbes

    The moral relativism of the Woke: Everything before yesterday is wrong.

    Every year is The Year Zero. Leftards have learned nothing in the last 225 years.

    Nothing.

  44. The movie HIGHER NUMBERS was a combination of out right fabrication and gross exageration….

  45. @Torn and Frayed
    Homophobia is a necessary expression of homosexuality. The most homophobic of institutions will always be the most homosexual: for example the Catholic Church. Every single time a prominent preacher or GOP senator goes off on a homophobic rant, you KNOW that within six months the bundle of sticks will get caught hoofing meth with a gay hooker. They have even done Clockwork Orange style interrogations and it turns out the dudes professing the most homophobia got the most wood when forced to watch gay porn. The USSR recognising the disproportionate gayness of the Nazi hierarchy and declared that homosexuality was a symptom of fascism, and thus exposed their own latent homosexuality.

    Attacking so called moral relativism is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that there is no such thing as moral absolutism. Yes, people may profess to their enemies the absolute universality of morals, do onto others, make no rule that you would not apply to yourself, etc, etc. But the minute push comes to shove, people will revert to moral perspectivism, they will morally approve whatever they think helps the group they want to win. Any group that actually ever did truly apply moral absolutism to themselves would have long ago ended up in the societal dustbin of history.

    Replies: @Catdog, @James J O'Meara

    You’re an arachnophobe huh I guess you must really want to have sex with spiders

  46. @martin_2
    @Altai

    Blackmail was an issue. The threat to national security via blackmail a la The Profumo Affair was advanced as a supporting argument by those who wanted homosexuality decriminalised.

    Replies: @Forbes, @Travis

    Cambridge Five’s Guy Burgess, apparently, wasn’t threatened by blackmail, being “outed,” or any such-like lavender scare…

  47. @martin_2
    @Altai

    Blackmail was an issue. The threat to national security via blackmail a la The Profumo Affair was advanced as a supporting argument by those who wanted homosexuality decriminalised.

    Replies: @Forbes, @Travis

    exactly correct. Blackmail was a serious issue when homosexuality was considered deviant behavior by most people and even the medical community considered it a form of mental illness.

    Even communists were strongly opposed to gays. Homosexuality was seen as ‘a bourgeois degeneracy’. Communist Parties throughout the world persecuted homosexuals, incarcerated sodomites and put them in insane asylums or jailed them for being sexual deviants and they were prohibited from joining the communist party in the Soviet Union as homosexuality was linked to fascism due to the many homosexual Nazi party members.

  48. @Bardon Kaldian
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Prescod-Weinstein

    Aha...Okay

    Prescod-Weinstein is queer and agender. She is married to a lawyer. She has no children.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jus' Sayin'..., @AnotherDad

    She has no children.

    Natural selection in action!

  49. @Travis
    Che Guevara was a notorious homophobe. He campaigned to have gay people placed in prison, and when they were interned, they were treated worse than the rest of the prisoners. Che referred to gays as "scum" and perverts. Che Guevara established the first Cuban concentration camp in Guanahacabibes in 1960. In the camp where homosexuals were sent, there was a sign which said ˜Work Will Make You Men.’ Many of them died; others were tortured or raped. The regime that Che Guevara co-founded is the only one in the Western Hemisphere to have herded gays into forced labor camps.

    yet the woke still admire Che and continue to buy t-shirts with his image.

    Replies: @Gordo, @Catdog, @El Dato, @El Dato

    The regime that Che Guevara co-founded is the only one in the Western Hemisphere to have herded gays into forced labor camps. yet the woke still admire Che and continue to buy t-shirts with his image.

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” – Emerson

    That is why the left wins, we are playing cricket and they are throwing hand grenades.

  50. “It’s important to look at what happened and what the facts are,” says Rolf Danner, an astronomer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, who is chair of the American Astronomical Society’s committee on sexual orientation and gender minorities in astronomy. “

    We’re living in the Twilight Zone. I see no other possible explanation.

  51. @imnobody00
    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don't need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.

    It has been the same since Luther introduced relativism in the Western culture. He said that everybody could interpret the Bible as he saw fit (this relativism was directed against the Pope). When peasants revolted based on their own interpretation of the Bible, Luther told the princes to kill these mad dogs. The relativism was only about the Pope, Luther's interpretation was absolute.

    The French Revolution wanted liberty, equality and fraternity (relativism) against the Catholic King of France. When they got the power, they denied this for the peasants of La Vendée and repressed the Catholic rebellion without qualms.

    The Founding Fathers wanted liberty (this is relativism) against the King of England, who was taxing them too much. When the Whiskey rebellion rebelled against the Founding Fathers because of excessive taxes, the Founding Fathers repressed the rebellion mercilessly.

    The LGBTI wanted freedom (relativism). No police in every bed. Live and let live. Now that they have been adopted by TPTB, they want every speech to be controlled so they only get praise.

    It is: "your beliefs are relative, my beliefs are absolute". Relativism for thee but not for me. Relativism is only a weapon towards the enemy. It is not meant to be taken seriously. The enemy that takes it seriously loses. Every. Single. Time.

    Replies: @Altai, @sj2001, @InnerCynic, @Prester John, @James J O'Meara

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Luther was a “company man”, much like Trump or even someone as seemingly unlikely as Yasser Arafat. His mission was to stir the pot and see how the “unfaithful” would bubble up and thus be exposed to TPTB for what they truly believed and thus targeted for extermination. It also served as a means to reinvigorate the Company and give them something to rally around while diddling choir boys on the side. All rather sordid. Head fakes, disinformation, and a culture of lies have only been polished and refined over the centuries. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

  52. @Travis
    Che Guevara was a notorious homophobe. He campaigned to have gay people placed in prison, and when they were interned, they were treated worse than the rest of the prisoners. Che referred to gays as "scum" and perverts. Che Guevara established the first Cuban concentration camp in Guanahacabibes in 1960. In the camp where homosexuals were sent, there was a sign which said ˜Work Will Make You Men.’ Many of them died; others were tortured or raped. The regime that Che Guevara co-founded is the only one in the Western Hemisphere to have herded gays into forced labor camps.

    yet the woke still admire Che and continue to buy t-shirts with his image.

    Replies: @Gordo, @Catdog, @El Dato, @El Dato

    Good.

  53. @Reg Cæsar

    James Webb Space Telescope
     
    Songs that rocketed up the charts:

    By the Time I Get to Phobos
    Where's the Plasma, Susie
    Jupiter Lineman
    Galaxton
    Macclesfield Park
    Up, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up and Away
    Hertz That Could Happen
    If You See Me Getting Smaller I'm Leaving the Solar System
    The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Reg Cæsar

    Remember when we celebrated accomplishment with song?

  54. @JR Ewing
    Same thing is eventually going to happen Manchin once he leaves office and is no longer practically useful (i.e. counting noses) to them.

    I’ve always thought it strange that “conservative” Democrats couldn’t see the writing on the wall.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    He’s leaving office like FDR did and not before.

  55. @Bardon Kaldian
    https://live.staticflickr.com/3361/3503357507_12fd392dc6.jpg

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    From Apollo 13 onward, the Commaders had arm, leg, and helmet stripes on their suits so that they could be distinguished from the LMPs in mission photographs. The following in an extract from a 1996 letter from UK researcher Keith Wilson on the broader topic of Apollo 11 photography:
    “Brian Duff was head of Public Affairs at JSC (then MSFC) at the time of Apollo 11. He actually only took up the job ten weeks before Apollo 11. In a letter to me … Duff remembers being in the photo lab in the LRL (Lunar Receiving Lab) when the Apollo 11 film was displayed soon after being developed. ‘It was full of self-appointed photograph selectors, many of whom outranked me’.”
    “Duff was under great pressure to make a selection because the world’s media were desperate for the material. Both 70 mm and motion picture were laid out on light tables in long strips. ‘Everyone was yelling and finally somebody said shouldn’t we try to get a picture of the first man on the Moon?’ They started looking for the best shot of Armstrong. Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong.”

    The existence of Hasselblad photos of Neil during the Apollo 11 is discussed in detail elsewhere in the ALSJ. Wilson continues:
    “During that evening in the photo lab … a decision was made to include some sort of astronaut identification on future missions. It was Brian Duff who was partly responsible for the inclusion of stripes on the CDR’s spacesuit on later missions – too late for Apollo 12. For 24 hours they were called the ‘Public Affairs Stripes’ before being renamed the ‘Commander’s Stripes’.”

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-CDRStripes.html

  56. Wait until they find out he was born on a former slave plantation and his father was superintendent of a segregated school system.

    Webb was a distant cousin of both my mother’s parents, and his parents lived next door when she was a girl. My grandfather said that the further up in government James went, the closer kin he became.

  57. @anon
    @Altai


    when Glass led the ACLU, freedom of speech benefited groups and speech he liked, broadly. Today his equivalents understand the situation to be the opposite and now the ACLU is in the business of suppressing speech and information.
     
    Tested sufficiently, how many individuals, groups, movements, or enterprises, consistently live-up to their purported principles at all times, even at the direct and costly expense of their perceived or manifest interests?

    Which, of the two, is, overwhelmingly, the primary motivation behind and driver of human behavior: (a) interests or (b) purported principles? How often are the latter little, if any more than convenient, conscience-assuaging, aesthetically correct, and expedient rationalizations, justifications, and pretexts for the pursuit of the former (interests)?

    Replies: @Altai, @gandydancer

    A great many North West Europeans even when they don’t like the results, they are moral sacrifices to them.

  58. @imnobody00
    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don't need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.

    It has been the same since Luther introduced relativism in the Western culture. He said that everybody could interpret the Bible as he saw fit (this relativism was directed against the Pope). When peasants revolted based on their own interpretation of the Bible, Luther told the princes to kill these mad dogs. The relativism was only about the Pope, Luther's interpretation was absolute.

    The French Revolution wanted liberty, equality and fraternity (relativism) against the Catholic King of France. When they got the power, they denied this for the peasants of La Vendée and repressed the Catholic rebellion without qualms.

    The Founding Fathers wanted liberty (this is relativism) against the King of England, who was taxing them too much. When the Whiskey rebellion rebelled against the Founding Fathers because of excessive taxes, the Founding Fathers repressed the rebellion mercilessly.

    The LGBTI wanted freedom (relativism). No police in every bed. Live and let live. Now that they have been adopted by TPTB, they want every speech to be controlled so they only get praise.

    It is: "your beliefs are relative, my beliefs are absolute". Relativism for thee but not for me. Relativism is only a weapon towards the enemy. It is not meant to be taken seriously. The enemy that takes it seriously loses. Every. Single. Time.

    Replies: @Altai, @sj2001, @InnerCynic, @Prester John, @James J O'Meara

    What you have accurately described are examples of hypocrisy writ large. And it never fails to manifest itself in some fashion.

  59. @sj2001
    @imnobody00

    You nailed it. My favorite example is the "Free Speech Movement" starting at Berkeley in the early 60s. Once the leftists completed the tearing down of the old university system and took power, they promptly started setting up the college speech codes we see everywhere today.

    Replies: @Prester John

    Of course. The list goes on and on. JD Salinger’s Holden Caulfield wasn’t far wrong when he said that the world was filled with phonies.

  60. @Stan d Mute
    When you Boomers have completely consumed yourselves, are the rest of us to infer some Frank Herbert message? Or perhaps more like the far eastern version?

    Replies: @J.Ross

    >the rest of us

    The point of the Boomers is to have no rest of us. They’ll permit a few younger people to survive, hence the totalitarianism and the disgusting eagerness of those in the know to conform. They’re Cronos.

  61. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1420010343175278600?s=20

    MSRNC is a Derp State group blog. We know what they did to the Branch Davidians, kids and all.

    This is not a drill.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    It shouldn’t even get to that point though: Pelosi deliberately violated a House practice which had been universally understood and obeyed since the late nineteenth century, probably before. A minority party can put who they want on a committee. This committee is going to be garbage anyway, but the leadership is so elderly, they can’t do anything properly any more. Democrats probably cheat when they sharpen pencils.

  62. Chanda Prescod-Weinstein = Indian-nosed, chews carpet

  63. @Mike_from_SGV
    @Redneck farmer

    "Antonio Gramsci Memorial National Space Telescope" would be appropriate, in New America.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    If we’re going to go on naming things like big telescopes after actual people (as opposed to the actual scientist-sperg inclinations like calling them the VLA — the “Very Large Array”, I’m not joking)…..

    I would suggest naming something after Professor Owen Gingrich, who taught for many years the Introduction to Astronomy/Intro to History of Science core course at Harvard, and thus gave many soon-to-be-influential young minds their first taste, and final gasp, of !!Science!! (pace Thomas Dolby). (1)

    He was sort of famous for comedically exiting his lectures with a demonstration of Newton’s laws of motion, by sitting in an office chair and then setting off a fire extinguisher, the force of which sent him exiting stage left.

    (1) I’m one of those annoying wags who dutifully got a 780 score on the math part of the SAT, and then swore up and down that I never, EVER wanted to see another math equation ever again in my life, not even simple arithmetic. I wonder how much of the public discursive culture has been warped by well-educated people with hang-ups like that.

  64. @Torn and Frayed
    Homophobia is a necessary expression of homosexuality. The most homophobic of institutions will always be the most homosexual: for example the Catholic Church. Every single time a prominent preacher or GOP senator goes off on a homophobic rant, you KNOW that within six months the bundle of sticks will get caught hoofing meth with a gay hooker. They have even done Clockwork Orange style interrogations and it turns out the dudes professing the most homophobia got the most wood when forced to watch gay porn. The USSR recognising the disproportionate gayness of the Nazi hierarchy and declared that homosexuality was a symptom of fascism, and thus exposed their own latent homosexuality.

    Attacking so called moral relativism is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that there is no such thing as moral absolutism. Yes, people may profess to their enemies the absolute universality of morals, do onto others, make no rule that you would not apply to yourself, etc, etc. But the minute push comes to shove, people will revert to moral perspectivism, they will morally approve whatever they think helps the group they want to win. Any group that actually ever did truly apply moral absolutism to themselves would have long ago ended up in the societal dustbin of history.

    Replies: @Catdog, @James J O'Meara

    ‘Any group that actually ever did truly apply moral absolutism to themselves would have long ago ended up in the societal dustbin of history.”

    I’m reminded of my favorite quote from an academic philosopher, Richard Taylor, attacking Kant in his book Good and Evil:

    “If anyone honestly professed to guiding his life by the Categorical Imperative, I would regard him with the same horror as I would if he had confessed to habitually drowning small children, just to watch them squirm.”

  65. The first order of business (and I suspect the only one if successful) is getting the Grahams back onside. Once he called out the cavalry for Biden (!) the election was in effect over at that point no matter the late anti-neocon landslide.* If he knew the lay of the land he’d already here be but nerds like Graham:

    (a) have inordinate power, especially over things like elections and content moderation

    (b) aren’t much interested in the real. Or rather they’re more interested in other things as Graham explains here:

    http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

    They don’t need convincing that we’re right or anything, they just need their incentives adjusted to make the real a renewed subject of interest for them and the rest will take care of itself. Strategies toward that end would be extraordinarily productive.

    [MORE]

    *- They did something similar in ’08 and ’12 but most didn’t really notice since McCain and Romney were such wankers. The formerly nonpartisan DC/corporate bureaucracy have nothing if not a nose for power so they absolutely noticed. A whole lot of priors adjusted in 2012 (as one can see by the take off of wokelism shortly thereafter) in a way that wasn’t easily undone, hence the across the board resistance to Trump and willingness to go all out in 2020 to return to the status quo established by 2012.

    That status quo itself was an artifact of nerd power and the preferences it enforces and can perforce change quickly as those preferences do. The power isn’t going away anytime soon.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Desiderius

    The first order of business

    Is not this.

    https://tastecooking.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/spamspamspam-1.gif

  66. @imnobody00
    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don't need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.

    It has been the same since Luther introduced relativism in the Western culture. He said that everybody could interpret the Bible as he saw fit (this relativism was directed against the Pope). When peasants revolted based on their own interpretation of the Bible, Luther told the princes to kill these mad dogs. The relativism was only about the Pope, Luther's interpretation was absolute.

    The French Revolution wanted liberty, equality and fraternity (relativism) against the Catholic King of France. When they got the power, they denied this for the peasants of La Vendée and repressed the Catholic rebellion without qualms.

    The Founding Fathers wanted liberty (this is relativism) against the King of England, who was taxing them too much. When the Whiskey rebellion rebelled against the Founding Fathers because of excessive taxes, the Founding Fathers repressed the rebellion mercilessly.

    The LGBTI wanted freedom (relativism). No police in every bed. Live and let live. Now that they have been adopted by TPTB, they want every speech to be controlled so they only get praise.

    It is: "your beliefs are relative, my beliefs are absolute". Relativism for thee but not for me. Relativism is only a weapon towards the enemy. It is not meant to be taken seriously. The enemy that takes it seriously loses. Every. Single. Time.

    Replies: @Altai, @sj2001, @InnerCynic, @Prester John, @James J O'Meara

    “Luther introduced relativism in the Western culture. He said that everybody could interpret the Bible as he saw fit …”

    Complete nonsense. “Private interpretation” was anathema to him. Luther argued that the Bible, as God’s word, was a message — A message, not messages — to mankind, and should — and could — be read like any other message; trying to understand the meaning of words, cultural context, etc. but not relying on “Tradition” or cryptography (he hated the Book of Revelation).

    His “grammatico-historical method” was the origin of today’s Higher Criticism. But even Fundamentalists believe you must be given Faith by God to correctly understand the text; it’s not up for grabs.

    The plethora of denominations and sects may be an unfortunate consequence, — turns out trying to make sense of a book of Bronze Age fairy tales is hard — but it was by no means his intention.

    • Thanks: RadicalCenter
  67. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1419811731493302281?s=20

    The first order of business (and I suspect the only one if successful) is getting the Grahams back onside. Once he called out the cavalry for Biden (!) the election was in effect over at that point no matter the late anti-neocon landslide.* If he knew the lay of the land he'd already here be but nerds like Graham:

    (a) have inordinate power, especially over things like elections and content moderation

    (b) aren't much interested in the real. Or rather they're more interested in other things as Graham explains here:

    http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

    They don't need convincing that we're right or anything, they just need their incentives adjusted to make the real a renewed subject of interest for them and the rest will take care of itself. Strategies toward that end would be extraordinarily productive.

    *- They did something similar in '08 and '12 but most didn't really notice since McCain and Romney were such wankers. The formerly nonpartisan DC/corporate bureaucracy have nothing if not a nose for power so they absolutely noticed. A whole lot of priors adjusted in 2012 (as one can see by the take off of wokelism shortly thereafter) in a way that wasn't easily undone, hence the across the board resistance to Trump and willingness to go all out in 2020 to return to the status quo established by 2012.

    That status quo itself was an artifact of nerd power and the preferences it enforces and can perforce change quickly as those preferences do. The power isn't going away anytime soon.

    Replies: @anon

    The first order of business

    Is not this.

  68. @Forbes
    @Charlotte

    The moral relativism of the Woke: Everything before yesterday is wrong.

    Replies: @anon

    The moral relativism of the Woke: Everything before yesterday is wrong.

    Every year is The Year Zero. Leftards have learned nothing in the last 225 years.

    Nothing.

  69. anon[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @AceDeuce
    @TruthHurts2k21


    Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour.
     
    And homosexuality isn't?

    Replies: @anon

    Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour.

    And homosexuality isn’t?

    Do you mean voluntary behavior or involuntary feelings? Either or both can be included under the vague term “homosexuality”.
    The shortest answer to your question, for both phenomena (feelings and behavior) would be: ‘it depends’ or ‘it can be’.

    Re: feelings:
    Even if a genetic component to these were to be discovered, would that preclude the possible effect of environmental influences? Specifically, influences during an individual’s formative years having a profound, even decisive effect on the ultimate direction of his sexuality?

    [MORE]
    Some time back, a commenter here suggested that male homoeroticism [1] may span a spectrum, from at least nearly completely innate and perhaps even immutable (or at least almost immutable) in some individuals, to nearly or even completely environmental and malleable in others.

    Re: behavior:

    This varies, often wildly, both by individual, as well as by particular behavior. I have read a number of (mostly self-reported) accounts that would suggest that any number of adolescent males may find certain homoerotic behaviors of a non-penetrative variety, at least, quite intuitive and natural. Can such cases of homoerotic intimacy– ones in which there is no penetration, and both consent as well as pleasure are fully and unequivocally mutual– be objectively viewed as inherently depraved or unwholesome, per se? Categorically?

    Is the real danger of such frolicking (to the extent there is one), not, rather, that through such indulgence, the youths may be cultivating within themselves an enduring fancy, a fetish, that ultimately, will yield only bitter fruits? Surely the greatest danger for a still-impressionable youth would be for him to become illusioned by the pernicious falsehood that any form of homoerotic intimacy, or for that matter, anything, can provide the unique fulfillment that heterosexual marriage and family can. Are there some boys whose homoeroticism will ultimately, despite their best efforts, not allow them the attraction to, and comfort and confidence with the opposite sex that is necessary for said goal to be obtainable? There may be, alas. But let us never condemn anyone who may still have a chance, who is still in his formative years, by depriving him of it.

    [1] A more precise word that refers specifically to feelings.

    • Thanks: ic1000
  70. Moral relativism was hip when there was a majority traditionalist culture to dismantle. Now that the cultural elites pretty much successfully dismantled it, or marginalized it to pockets of middle America, they don’t want to be relativized. Now it is all about establishing new norms.

    Indeed, one of the most fun academic exercises (at least for those who have a nihilistic bent toward merryment) is relativizing a relativizer. It leads to a lot of sputtering and swooning. Pointing out the cannibalism or homophobia in sub-Saharan Africa is just the tip of the iceberg.

  71. @Mike Tre
    @TruthHurts2k21

    Homophobia is a fake word invented to shout down legitimate arguments presented against buggery, grooming, and the rampant spreading of VD, and now granting flaming homosexual men and transsexuals access to young children to indoctrinate them into accepting all the former as normal.

    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Triteleia Laxa

    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.

    I think this is spot on. It takes a village to keep people–men specifically–from having the natural reaction to homosexuality.

    But, i do wonder about the HBD aspect.

    I’m a particular kind of guy. I was always interested in girls–far earlier than puberty. I was sweet on a girl in kindergarten. I had a girlfriend in elementary school. (Who unfortunately passed away years ago in her late 40s.) Don’t know if that’s relevant, but i suspect it is.

    And obviously there’s the issue of innate psychological traits. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt have shown that conservatives have more balanced valuation of different moral emotions. And one of those is disgust. (Which is ranked very low for lefties.)

    Disgust is certainly my reaction to male homosexuals. And it’s also my reaction–or at least how i’d express my reaction–to the whole edifice of minoritarianism, the all the whiny complaining, all their lying, their excuse making, their PC minders and goons, and their tedious virtue signaling. Disgust. Although “contempt” and “hatred” are probably their in the mix.

    My feeling about homosexuals is probably best summed up by “oh, just go away!”

    • Agree: gandydancer
    • Thanks: Mike Tre
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @AnotherDad

    The starting point has to be this: Sexual obsessions, which if universal would result in the extinction of humanity in one generation are not to be celebrated.
    The only issue is the degree, if any, is it to be tolerated.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @AnotherDad


    Disgust is certainly my reaction to male homosexuals.
     
    It's my reaction to males, period. Literally, homophobia means disgust at one's own kind, and of that I have plenty.

    Back in the Summer of Streak, 1974, some police department or sheriff down South announced that young women involved would be left alone, but if any man dared try it, he'd have the book thrown at him. At the time, I thought, simple common sense. Still do.


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nintchdbpict000304049422.jpg?strip=all&w=718

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad


    Disgust is certainly my reaction
     
    You're "disgusted" by something which presents no physical threat to you. What is your "digust" reflex protecting you from?

    It certainly is something. I fully believe in the validity of it for you.

    Replies: @Change that Matters, @Mike Tre, @AnotherDad

  72. @Travis
    Che Guevara was a notorious homophobe. He campaigned to have gay people placed in prison, and when they were interned, they were treated worse than the rest of the prisoners. Che referred to gays as "scum" and perverts. Che Guevara established the first Cuban concentration camp in Guanahacabibes in 1960. In the camp where homosexuals were sent, there was a sign which said ˜Work Will Make You Men.’ Many of them died; others were tortured or raped. The regime that Che Guevara co-founded is the only one in the Western Hemisphere to have herded gays into forced labor camps.

    yet the woke still admire Che and continue to buy t-shirts with his image.

    Replies: @Gordo, @Catdog, @El Dato, @El Dato

    Is this why the US still trying to overthrow the Cuban Regime per fas et nefas?

  73. @Travis
    Che Guevara was a notorious homophobe. He campaigned to have gay people placed in prison, and when they were interned, they were treated worse than the rest of the prisoners. Che referred to gays as "scum" and perverts. Che Guevara established the first Cuban concentration camp in Guanahacabibes in 1960. In the camp where homosexuals were sent, there was a sign which said ˜Work Will Make You Men.’ Many of them died; others were tortured or raped. The regime that Che Guevara co-founded is the only one in the Western Hemisphere to have herded gays into forced labor camps.

    yet the woke still admire Che and continue to buy t-shirts with his image.

    Replies: @Gordo, @Catdog, @El Dato, @El Dato

  74. @Bardon Kaldian
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Prescod-Weinstein

    Aha...Okay

    Prescod-Weinstein is queer and agender. She is married to a lawyer. She has no children.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jus' Sayin'..., @AnotherDad

    Prescod-Weinstein is queer and agender. She is married to a lawyer. She has no children.

    I especially appreciate that she-it has no children.

    This might not tell now. But down the road in old age–while she-it won’t be changing it’s opinions, there may be some unease and realization settling in.

    I’m generally a “nice guy”. But over the last decade–in a nod to old age–allowed myself to wish my enemies ill and enjoy a little schadenfreude at any misfortune befalling them (more please!) These are evil people who are making my life, my kids’ lives, my posterity’s lives worse; who are destroying Western Civilization, the greatest civilization man has created so far.

    And then, of course, there’s genes. Let’s get their genes cancelled ASAP.

    • Agree: gandydancer
  75. I’ve been trying to get through to my elected representatives and have determined the same thing. Initially someone returned my call and promised a response but none was forthcoming and now there is no one there.

    Moldbug isn’t completely right – it’s still very important and it has been to get involved and lead locally – but on the national level our job is to come up with the next thing. The present thing isn’t going anywhere but down.

    • Agree: gandydancer, Guest29048
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Desiderius


    Moldbug isn’t completely right
     
    I like his concept of "reset". I just have no idea what institution remains that could conduct it. The various local police departments were an off the wall option. Perhaps Peter Thiel's various funds and business provide a kernel. I would do some work for them for free.

    Replies: @anon, @Desiderius

  76. @Altai
    @imnobody00


    Relativism is useful when you are weak so you weaken the justification of TPTB to persecute you. When you are TPTB, you don’t need relativism anymore and you can impose your beliefs and your will in your absolute manner.
     
    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick

    This article where the old head of the ACLU, Ira Glasser, bemoans the current leadership of the ACLU is a classic example. The same sort of people, just born in different generations. Glasser, doesn't or claims not to understand what happened.

    In truth it's simple, when Glass led the ACLU, freedom of speech benefited groups and speech he liked, broadly. Today his equivalents understand the situation to be the opposite and now the ACLU is in the business of suppressing speech and information.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/aclu-blocks-womans-request-for-data-on-numbers-of-transgender-inmates-in-womens-prisons

    Glasser and his friends rarely encountered anybody who wasn’t Jewish, much less Black, within the 12-block neighborhood of East Flatbush that comprised the world of their childhood (New York City, he says in the film, was less the fabled “melting pot” of popular American sentiment than “a collection of insular segregated tribes”).

    ...

    No American minority had reaped more from its faith in the country’s professed commitment to pluralism and tolerance than the Jews, a gift they repaid many times over by supporting the institutions—the universities, the Democratic Party, the ACLU—which upheld them. In the same way Lenny Bruce classified Ray Charles and fruit salad as Jewish (while claiming that “Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it”), so the ACLU was seen as scrappy, authentic, and emblematic of an underdog quality. As Bruce might have put it: the ACLU, Jewish; the McCarthyite American Jewish League Against Communism, goyish.
     
    That the article is published in Tablet makes the context all the more clear. A lot of older Jews political aesthetic just ossified and they haven't worked out the world has changed yet. Maybe Glasser really does bemoan the ACLU no longer being about protecting everyone's freedom of speech but as the article makes clear, his motivation wasn't one of abstract values but of who/whom benefited from those policies.

    But while listening to play-by-play announcer Red Barber’s report about the Dodgers’ road trip to St. Louis, then the southernmost city in the National League, they understood two important things: that Jackie Robinson was a god, and that the treatment he endured—the racist invective from Cardinals fans, the segregation that kept him from eating in the same restaurants or sleeping in the same hotels as his teammates—constituted a form of blasphemy.

    A hatred of Jim Crow and a passion for civil rights developed from Glasser’s dedication to the Dodgers, as did a theory of the nature of sports fandom itself: If rooting for the Dodgers situated one on the right side of what was then the country’s central moral struggle, then cheering for the Yankees (the third to last team to hire a Black player) signified a belief in “oil depletion allowances.” Writing a quarter century after his beloved team abandoned Brooklyn for sunnier Los Angeles and Ebbets was razed to the ground, Glasser observed that “Dodger fans became egalitarians who would often be found working at the ACLU.”
     

    Replies: @anon, @gandydancer

    I’m not sure where that first blockquote comes from, but it’s not in the Tablet article that you link to immediately afterwards. Nor does duckduckgo find it. So I still have no idea what TPTB is an acronym for.

    Am I supposed to think that Glasser’s advocacy of free speech, or free speech itself, is bad because he was (allegedly) motivated to advocate for it by self-interest or Tribal self interest?

  77. @anon
    @Altai


    when Glass led the ACLU, freedom of speech benefited groups and speech he liked, broadly. Today his equivalents understand the situation to be the opposite and now the ACLU is in the business of suppressing speech and information.
     
    Tested sufficiently, how many individuals, groups, movements, or enterprises, consistently live-up to their purported principles at all times, even at the direct and costly expense of their perceived or manifest interests?

    Which, of the two, is, overwhelmingly, the primary motivation behind and driver of human behavior: (a) interests or (b) purported principles? How often are the latter little, if any more than convenient, conscience-assuaging, aesthetically correct, and expedient rationalizations, justifications, and pretexts for the pursuit of the former (interests)?

    Replies: @Altai, @gandydancer

    Altai’s words which you blockquote in [31] fail to make an obvious distinction. His ACLU was, I presume, broadly pro-Israeli. Yet the ACLU is not now in the business of suppressing speech by the likes of Ilhan Omar or AOC. So the idea that the ACLU has changed simply to track “manifest” self-interest is obtuse.

    I notice that you unexpectedly left off a couple of the parens pairs around “(interests)”. Is that to lower the profile of your antisemitism?

    • Replies: @gandydancer
    @gandydancer

    By "His" I of course mean Glasser's.

  78. @gandydancer
    @anon

    Altai's words which you blockquote in [31] fail to make an obvious distinction. His ACLU was, I presume, broadly pro-Israeli. Yet the ACLU is not now in the business of suppressing speech by the likes of Ilhan Omar or AOC. So the idea that the ACLU has changed simply to track "manifest" self-interest is obtuse.

    I notice that you unexpectedly left off a couple of the parens pairs around "(interests)". Is that to lower the profile of your antisemitism?

    Replies: @gandydancer

    By “His” I of course mean Glasser’s.

  79. James Webb ran NASA from 1961 – 1968.

    What did they actually accomplish in those years to compare with the Olympian achievements of the contemporary organization?

  80. @AnotherDad
    @Mike Tre


    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.
     
    I think this is spot on. It takes a village to keep people--men specifically--from having the natural reaction to homosexuality.

    But, i do wonder about the HBD aspect.

    I'm a particular kind of guy. I was always interested in girls--far earlier than puberty. I was sweet on a girl in kindergarten. I had a girlfriend in elementary school. (Who unfortunately passed away years ago in her late 40s.) Don't know if that's relevant, but i suspect it is.

    And obviously there's the issue of innate psychological traits. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt have shown that conservatives have more balanced valuation of different moral emotions. And one of those is disgust. (Which is ranked very low for lefties.)

    Disgust is certainly my reaction to male homosexuals. And it's also my reaction--or at least how i'd express my reaction--to the whole edifice of minoritarianism, the all the whiny complaining, all their lying, their excuse making, their PC minders and goons, and their tedious virtue signaling. Disgust. Although "contempt" and "hatred" are probably their in the mix.

    My feeling about homosexuals is probably best summed up by "oh, just go away!"

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Reg Cæsar, @Triteleia Laxa

    The starting point has to be this: Sexual obsessions, which if universal would result in the extinction of humanity in one generation are not to be celebrated.
    The only issue is the degree, if any, is it to be tolerated.

  81. @AndrewR
    @TruthHurts2k21

    I hate the media so much.


    During the lavender scare, gay people were cast, untruthfully, as perverts who might be desperate to keep their sexual orientation secret and thus be susceptible to revealing government secrets under blackmail.
     
    Whether or not practicing homosexuals were/are "perverts" (and the most visible ones certainly are), it's undeniable that they were more vulnerable to blackmail in the early decades of the Cold War. To some extent, even today there are undoubtedly many closeted homosexuals/bisexuals among the ranks of the military and CIA.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    When I applied to the Foreign Service in the 1980s, we were told that they were very wary about hiring immigrants, or children of immigrants, from certain places, despite the constant desperate need for people fluent in the languages. That’s because such individuals might be vulnerable to pressure put on relatives back home.

    So blackmail was always a credible threat, even when sex wasn’t involved at all.

  82. @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    When will the leftists start attacking Muslims for their anti-homosexual views?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    When will the leftists start attacking Muslims for their anti-homosexual views?

    “Islam is right about gays.”

    Likewise, they are right about democracy, Hollywood, marriage, Jews, and, of course, women. You could cover your rear bumper with such ambiguous memes.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    ambiguous memes.
     
    Are the stock-in-trade of the intellectual coward who wants to dog whistle without stating a forthright position thatncan be refuted.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  83. @Mike Tre
    @TruthHurts2k21

    Homophobia is a fake word invented to shout down legitimate arguments presented against buggery, grooming, and the rampant spreading of VD, and now granting flaming homosexual men and transsexuals access to young children to indoctrinate them into accepting all the former as normal.

    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Triteleia Laxa

    Homophobia is a fake word

    All words are “fake”, but I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena, even if it is frequently misused.

    It is a “weaponised” or “politicised” term.

    rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.

    Thanks Mother Nature.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena,

    Please explicate.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Mike Tre
    @Triteleia Laxa

    "All words are “fake”" Nonsense. Words and more specifically nouns were created to identify things that are real and can be defined.

    "but I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena"

    Absolutely false. No one is afraid of homosexuals. As AnotherDad says, people are disgusted by them, or repulsed. That is not fear. Hence homophobia is a fake word with no true meaning.

  84. @AnotherDad
    @Mike Tre


    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.
     
    I think this is spot on. It takes a village to keep people--men specifically--from having the natural reaction to homosexuality.

    But, i do wonder about the HBD aspect.

    I'm a particular kind of guy. I was always interested in girls--far earlier than puberty. I was sweet on a girl in kindergarten. I had a girlfriend in elementary school. (Who unfortunately passed away years ago in her late 40s.) Don't know if that's relevant, but i suspect it is.

    And obviously there's the issue of innate psychological traits. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt have shown that conservatives have more balanced valuation of different moral emotions. And one of those is disgust. (Which is ranked very low for lefties.)

    Disgust is certainly my reaction to male homosexuals. And it's also my reaction--or at least how i'd express my reaction--to the whole edifice of minoritarianism, the all the whiny complaining, all their lying, their excuse making, their PC minders and goons, and their tedious virtue signaling. Disgust. Although "contempt" and "hatred" are probably their in the mix.

    My feeling about homosexuals is probably best summed up by "oh, just go away!"

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Reg Cæsar, @Triteleia Laxa

    Disgust is certainly my reaction to male homosexuals.

    It’s my reaction to males, period. Literally, homophobia means disgust at one’s own kind, and of that I have plenty.

    Back in the Summer of Streak, 1974, some police department or sheriff down South announced that young women involved would be left alone, but if any man dared try it, he’d have the book thrown at him. At the time, I thought, simple common sense. Still do.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Reg Cæsar

    Lmao "I like it when women act like degenrate whores but god forbid a man does it"

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  85. @AnotherDad
    @Mike Tre


    Homophilia is actually the socially learned behavior; rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.
     
    I think this is spot on. It takes a village to keep people--men specifically--from having the natural reaction to homosexuality.

    But, i do wonder about the HBD aspect.

    I'm a particular kind of guy. I was always interested in girls--far earlier than puberty. I was sweet on a girl in kindergarten. I had a girlfriend in elementary school. (Who unfortunately passed away years ago in her late 40s.) Don't know if that's relevant, but i suspect it is.

    And obviously there's the issue of innate psychological traits. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt have shown that conservatives have more balanced valuation of different moral emotions. And one of those is disgust. (Which is ranked very low for lefties.)

    Disgust is certainly my reaction to male homosexuals. And it's also my reaction--or at least how i'd express my reaction--to the whole edifice of minoritarianism, the all the whiny complaining, all their lying, their excuse making, their PC minders and goons, and their tedious virtue signaling. Disgust. Although "contempt" and "hatred" are probably their in the mix.

    My feeling about homosexuals is probably best summed up by "oh, just go away!"

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Reg Cæsar, @Triteleia Laxa

    Disgust is certainly my reaction

    You’re “disgusted” by something which presents no physical threat to you. What is your “digust” reflex protecting you from?

    It certainly is something. I fully believe in the validity of it for you.

    • Replies: @Change that Matters
    @Triteleia Laxa

    As if pederasts pose no physical threat to our children.

    You cheer from the sidelines for the destruction of Christendom without a thought for what a future without it might hold. May God have mercy on all our souls.

    , @Mike Tre
    @Triteleia Laxa

    "You’re “disgusted” by something which presents no physical threat to you. What is your “digust” reflex protecting you from?"

    Non Sequitur. Something does not have to present a physical threat in order to be disgusting. A maggot infested carcass on the side of the road is disgusting, but is not a physical threat.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Triteleia Laxa


    You’re “disgusted” by something which presents no physical threat to you.
     
    As long as i don't get sent to prison.


    What is your “digust” reflex protecting you from?
     
    You misunderstand disgust.

    Disgust isn't a "they're coming over the hills" reaction. Disgust is inherently an avoidance reaction. "Stay away from that." That it is filthy, diseased, etc. "Bad for you".

    Homosexuals pose little threat if they stay away from you--at least in this age of modern medicine, where their extra disease burden probably won't impact you. Back in the day ... not so clear.

    But that isn't the only issue. Homosexuals did/do pose a potential threat to the community, to your future. For example, absolutely positively do no want them around my son. Don't want them as teachers, priests, scoutmasters, coaches, etc. etc. No where they can start grooming boys.

    And at higher level they are a threat--a disorder--in the community. "Civilization" is basically a cooperative deal among men to "fairly" divide up access to women/reproduction so we can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate. Doing this makes any group of men more effective--cooperative/trusting--than a group that does not. It allows high esprit de corps. Homosexuals create disorder in that arrangement. They create potentially strong alliances that are outside family, but not part of the group esprit de corp. Thus they destroy trust and group cohesion.

    In other words, conservatives innately--correctly--understand that the homosexuals' disorder is both
    a) a potential threat to the health and development of their sons, grandsons
    b) a potential source of disorder within the systems/cohesion of the group.

    Which, of course, we've seen again and again--Church, scouting, coaches, camp counselors. All pretty obvious and the "no" reaction quite sensible. But now we are supposed to swallow some fantasy and not just allow, then normalize disorder in our midst but celebrate it.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Rosie

  86. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/sethweathers/status/1420097022644953089?s=20

    I've been trying to get through to my elected representatives and have determined the same thing. Initially someone returned my call and promised a response but none was forthcoming and now there is no one there.

    Moldbug isn't completely right - it's still very important and it has been to get involved and lead locally - but on the national level our job is to come up with the next thing. The present thing isn't going anywhere but down.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Moldbug isn’t completely right

    I like his concept of “reset”. I just have no idea what institution remains that could conduct it. The various local police departments were an off the wall option. Perhaps Peter Thiel’s various funds and business provide a kernel. I would do some work for them for free.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I like his concept of “reset”

    So does the Davos elite.

    , @Desiderius
    @Triteleia Laxa

    None.

    That's the point. Let them run their course then people will ready for the next thing. We need to have the next thing ready for when they are. By people I mean principally Paul Graham et al.

    And of course help people through the difficult collapse of the existing ones because that's what you do but that also builds the necessary credibility better than boat and monster truck parades or whatever.

  87. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mike Tre


    Homophobia is a fake word
     
    All words are "fake", but I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena, even if it is frequently misused.

    It is a "weaponised" or "politicised" term.

    rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.
     
    Thanks Mother Nature.

    Replies: @anon, @Mike Tre

    I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena,

    Please explicate.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays. They may also have rational fears and the label "homophobia" may often be misused, but the real phenomenon remains.

    Replies: @anon, @Bill Jones, @John Johnson

  88. @TruthHurts2k21
    I’m gay and I find this abhorrent. Society has changed massively with regards to gay people, no need to be vindictive about it. How can you judge someone that harshly when back then it was the complete norm to really dislike even an inkling of homosexuality. Homophobia is a socially learned behaviour. Are we also going to punish people retroactively for believing it was good to stay a virgin until marriage?

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @anon, @gent, @Mike Tre, @The Alarmist, @AceDeuce, @AndrewR, @Change that Matters

    This post is abhorrent.

  89. @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad


    Disgust is certainly my reaction
     
    You're "disgusted" by something which presents no physical threat to you. What is your "digust" reflex protecting you from?

    It certainly is something. I fully believe in the validity of it for you.

    Replies: @Change that Matters, @Mike Tre, @AnotherDad

    As if pederasts pose no physical threat to our children.

    You cheer from the sidelines for the destruction of Christendom without a thought for what a future without it might hold. May God have mercy on all our souls.


  90. [MORE]

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @MEH 0910

    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1418302333633585153

    , @AndrewR
    @MEH 0910

    He was only arrested because he is a white goy who contributed to the deaths of two "Black" men. Dozens of "civil rights groups" lobbied to get him prosecuted.

    What's most baffling to me is why the first death didn't make him change his ways. What an absolute degenerate. No wonder he was so tight with elite Democrats.

    , @Lurker
    @MEH 0910

    To lose one black gay prostitute, Mr Buck, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

    , @anon
    @MEH 0910

    Too bad Phil Spector's not around anymore. They would be excellent cellmates.

    , @AnotherDad
    @MEH 0910

    This would be scandalous. But there is no sense of scandal anymore. Our elites give us the finger every day. (See "the border").

    And--what Andrew said. The only reason this pervert is called to account is that his perversion knocked off a couple black perverts. And in the current Anno Georgius 2, that's not done. He just didn't understand that homosexuals were--at least temporarily--below blacks on the hierarchy. But if he'd OD'd a couple whites ... TPTB wouldn't have lifted a finger.

  91. @Reg Cæsar

    James Webb Space Telescope
     
    Songs that rocketed up the charts:

    By the Time I Get to Phobos
    Where's the Plasma, Susie
    Jupiter Lineman
    Galaxton
    Macclesfield Park
    Up, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up, Up and Away
    Hertz That Could Happen
    If You See Me Getting Smaller I'm Leaving the Solar System
    The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Reg Cæsar

    Speaking of Jimmy Webb…

    Galveston man charged in five-vehicle wreck near causeway

    “Wesley Achan Durant, 33, was charged with driving while intoxicated with children under the age of 15 in the vehicle…”

    https://www.bustedmugshots.com/texas/galveston/wesley-achan-durant/154529341

    https://arrestfiles.org/publicinfo/wesley-achan-durant

  92. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Desiderius


    Moldbug isn’t completely right
     
    I like his concept of "reset". I just have no idea what institution remains that could conduct it. The various local police departments were an off the wall option. Perhaps Peter Thiel's various funds and business provide a kernel. I would do some work for them for free.

    Replies: @anon, @Desiderius

    I like his concept of “reset”

    So does the Davos elite.

  93. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mike Tre


    Homophobia is a fake word
     
    All words are "fake", but I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena, even if it is frequently misused.

    It is a "weaponised" or "politicised" term.

    rejecting homosexuals is the natural inclination as the practice itself is anti-natural.
     
    Thanks Mother Nature.

    Replies: @anon, @Mike Tre

    “All words are “fake”” Nonsense. Words and more specifically nouns were created to identify things that are real and can be defined.

    “but I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena”

    Absolutely false. No one is afraid of homosexuals. As AnotherDad says, people are disgusted by them, or repulsed. That is not fear. Hence homophobia is a fake word with no true meaning.

  94. @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad


    Disgust is certainly my reaction
     
    You're "disgusted" by something which presents no physical threat to you. What is your "digust" reflex protecting you from?

    It certainly is something. I fully believe in the validity of it for you.

    Replies: @Change that Matters, @Mike Tre, @AnotherDad

    “You’re “disgusted” by something which presents no physical threat to you. What is your “digust” reflex protecting you from?”

    Non Sequitur. Something does not have to present a physical threat in order to be disgusting. A maggot infested carcass on the side of the road is disgusting, but is not a physical threat.

  95. @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad


    Disgust is certainly my reaction
     
    You're "disgusted" by something which presents no physical threat to you. What is your "digust" reflex protecting you from?

    It certainly is something. I fully believe in the validity of it for you.

    Replies: @Change that Matters, @Mike Tre, @AnotherDad

    You’re “disgusted” by something which presents no physical threat to you.

    As long as i don’t get sent to prison.

    What is your “digust” reflex protecting you from?

    You misunderstand disgust.

    Disgust isn’t a “they’re coming over the hills” reaction. Disgust is inherently an avoidance reaction. “Stay away from that.” That it is filthy, diseased, etc. “Bad for you”.

    Homosexuals pose little threat if they stay away from you–at least in this age of modern medicine, where their extra disease burden probably won’t impact you. Back in the day … not so clear.

    But that isn’t the only issue. Homosexuals did/do pose a potential threat to the community, to your future. For example, absolutely positively do no want them around my son. Don’t want them as teachers, priests, scoutmasters, coaches, etc. etc. No where they can start grooming boys.

    And at higher level they are a threat–a disorder–in the community. “Civilization” is basically a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so we can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate. Doing this makes any group of men more effective–cooperative/trusting–than a group that does not. It allows high esprit de corps. Homosexuals create disorder in that arrangement. They create potentially strong alliances that are outside family, but not part of the group esprit de corp. Thus they destroy trust and group cohesion.

    In other words, conservatives innately–correctly–understand that the homosexuals’ disorder is both
    a) a potential threat to the health and development of their sons, grandsons
    b) a potential source of disorder within the systems/cohesion of the group.

    Which, of course, we’ve seen again and again–Church, scouting, coaches, camp counselors. All pretty obvious and the “no” reaction quite sensible. But now we are supposed to swallow some fantasy and not just allow, then normalize disorder in our midst but celebrate it.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad

    If we ignore the boring sexual stuff, what do you find repels you from gay men? Your perception of their flamboyance? Or their public displays of vanity?

    You must have some answers in this type of category.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @AnotherDad

    , @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    “Civilization” is basically a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so we can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate.
     
    Civilization according to AnotherDad:

    https://youtu.be/E_Q5LnNlwZs

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  96. @AnotherDad
    @Triteleia Laxa


    You’re “disgusted” by something which presents no physical threat to you.
     
    As long as i don't get sent to prison.


    What is your “digust” reflex protecting you from?
     
    You misunderstand disgust.

    Disgust isn't a "they're coming over the hills" reaction. Disgust is inherently an avoidance reaction. "Stay away from that." That it is filthy, diseased, etc. "Bad for you".

    Homosexuals pose little threat if they stay away from you--at least in this age of modern medicine, where their extra disease burden probably won't impact you. Back in the day ... not so clear.

    But that isn't the only issue. Homosexuals did/do pose a potential threat to the community, to your future. For example, absolutely positively do no want them around my son. Don't want them as teachers, priests, scoutmasters, coaches, etc. etc. No where they can start grooming boys.

    And at higher level they are a threat--a disorder--in the community. "Civilization" is basically a cooperative deal among men to "fairly" divide up access to women/reproduction so we can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate. Doing this makes any group of men more effective--cooperative/trusting--than a group that does not. It allows high esprit de corps. Homosexuals create disorder in that arrangement. They create potentially strong alliances that are outside family, but not part of the group esprit de corp. Thus they destroy trust and group cohesion.

    In other words, conservatives innately--correctly--understand that the homosexuals' disorder is both
    a) a potential threat to the health and development of their sons, grandsons
    b) a potential source of disorder within the systems/cohesion of the group.

    Which, of course, we've seen again and again--Church, scouting, coaches, camp counselors. All pretty obvious and the "no" reaction quite sensible. But now we are supposed to swallow some fantasy and not just allow, then normalize disorder in our midst but celebrate it.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Rosie

    If we ignore the boring sexual stuff, what do you find repels you from gay men? Your perception of their flamboyance? Or their public displays of vanity?

    You must have some answers in this type of category.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Triteleia Laxa

    It's the general aura, I think. The following screenshots are taken from a Truvada advocacy video.



    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen19.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen20.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen18.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen21.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen23.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen24.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen22.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen25.jpg

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @AnotherDad
    @Triteleia Laxa


    If we ignore the boring sexual stuff, what do you find repels you from gay men? Your perception of their flamboyance? Or their public displays of vanity?
     
    Huh?

    It is the "boring sexual stuff". Sex--sex being ordered in society--is at the heart of civilization. So it isn't exactly a big shocker the people care about it.


    It's just "human nature"--but it still strikes me as pathetic--that almost everyone thinks that their little minority deserves special handling. "Yeah, yeah all that minoritarian/PC/woke bullshit is ridiculous when its about X, Y but we Z people are entitled to blah, blah, blah."

    No actually you're not.

    The only "duty" that any people, nation, civilization has is to protect, maintain and reproduce itself ... and reproduce the ability to protect, maintain and reproduce itself. (And ideally reproduce themselves stronger, more productive, more capable ... of continuing to protect, maintain and reproduce themselves.)

    Notice the emphasis on "reproduce". It's critical. And ergo societies care about it and enforce norms about how it's done.

    Forget any morality, it is a "logical duty". Societies that reproduce themselves survive. Those that don't die.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  97. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1420177799038619649

    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135958607892481
    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135966086336512

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1420178439227678724

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @AndrewR, @Lurker, @anon, @AnotherDad

  98. @Reg Cæsar
    @AnotherDad


    Disgust is certainly my reaction to male homosexuals.
     
    It's my reaction to males, period. Literally, homophobia means disgust at one's own kind, and of that I have plenty.

    Back in the Summer of Streak, 1974, some police department or sheriff down South announced that young women involved would be left alone, but if any man dared try it, he'd have the book thrown at him. At the time, I thought, simple common sense. Still do.


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nintchdbpict000304049422.jpg?strip=all&w=718

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Lmao “I like it when women act like degenrate whores but god forbid a man does it”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @AndrewR


    Lmao “I like it when women act like degenrate whores but god forbid a man does it”
     
    Compared to long-established perversions such as legal divorce, streaking was relatively innocent. My grandfather did far more damage by that one indiscretion than all his nudist neighbors did over many decades.

    Plus, naked men are eyesores by nature, in a way naked women are not. At least healthy ones. Few women choose to paint male nudes.

  99. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1420177799038619649

    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135958607892481
    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135966086336512

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1420178439227678724

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @AndrewR, @Lurker, @anon, @AnotherDad

    He was only arrested because he is a white goy who contributed to the deaths of two “Black” men. Dozens of “civil rights groups” lobbied to get him prosecuted.

    What’s most baffling to me is why the first death didn’t make him change his ways. What an absolute degenerate. No wonder he was so tight with elite Democrats.

  100. [MORE]

    You can thank Sammy Jr Jr for that one. That’s one black that isn’t fragile, and they unpersoned him for it.

  101. @Altai

    During the lavender scare, gay people were cast, untruthfully, as perverts who might be desperate to keep their sexual orientation secret and thus be susceptible to revealing government secrets under blackmail. Its epicentre was the Department of State, which handles foreign policy.
     
    There were so many ways that sentence might have been written that didn't imply that gay people in the 40s/50s in the US were only too happy to be outed.

    Replies: @martin_2, @AndrewR

    Exactly. The media is run by double digit IQ clowns who only think in buzzwords and slogans.

  102. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1420177799038619649

    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135958607892481
    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135966086336512

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1420178439227678724

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @AndrewR, @Lurker, @anon, @AnotherDad

    To lose one black gay prostitute, Mr Buck, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

  103. @AnotherDad
    @Triteleia Laxa


    You’re “disgusted” by something which presents no physical threat to you.
     
    As long as i don't get sent to prison.


    What is your “digust” reflex protecting you from?
     
    You misunderstand disgust.

    Disgust isn't a "they're coming over the hills" reaction. Disgust is inherently an avoidance reaction. "Stay away from that." That it is filthy, diseased, etc. "Bad for you".

    Homosexuals pose little threat if they stay away from you--at least in this age of modern medicine, where their extra disease burden probably won't impact you. Back in the day ... not so clear.

    But that isn't the only issue. Homosexuals did/do pose a potential threat to the community, to your future. For example, absolutely positively do no want them around my son. Don't want them as teachers, priests, scoutmasters, coaches, etc. etc. No where they can start grooming boys.

    And at higher level they are a threat--a disorder--in the community. "Civilization" is basically a cooperative deal among men to "fairly" divide up access to women/reproduction so we can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate. Doing this makes any group of men more effective--cooperative/trusting--than a group that does not. It allows high esprit de corps. Homosexuals create disorder in that arrangement. They create potentially strong alliances that are outside family, but not part of the group esprit de corp. Thus they destroy trust and group cohesion.

    In other words, conservatives innately--correctly--understand that the homosexuals' disorder is both
    a) a potential threat to the health and development of their sons, grandsons
    b) a potential source of disorder within the systems/cohesion of the group.

    Which, of course, we've seen again and again--Church, scouting, coaches, camp counselors. All pretty obvious and the "no" reaction quite sensible. But now we are supposed to swallow some fantasy and not just allow, then normalize disorder in our midst but celebrate it.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Rosie

    “Civilization” is basically a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so we can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate.

    Civilization according to AnotherDad:

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Rosie

    Yawn. Rosie, I've read enough of your stuff to know it's basically minoritarian feminism. Men exist to give women stuff and have to do it regardless of what women do/how they behave. (No actually we don't.)

    I freely admit i was sloppy in what i wrote. "Civilization basically requires" might have been a better start and/or then fleshing out where it goes. Maybe something like:

    “Civilization” basically requires a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so they can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate and put their efforts to productive use, which allows men to develop and build stuff."

    But the point is that constraining sexuality is at heart of it. In ancient pre-history presumably some proto-humans were like chimps and the leading males kept all the females to themselves. But then that only goes on until there's a successful "coup". And because the other males are locked out, there's no point in not trying to do a coup--once you think you have a shot. At some point humans had the mental/communication wherewithal that some tribes enforced some level of sexual equality, and those tribes out competed those that did not.

    But it's always a battle because--nature. It's in a man's genetic interest to impregnate all the women. And in woman's genetic to be impregnated by the most "fit" successful guy with the most resources. But societies where that goes on, will tend to be violent and low trust. Men will have to put significant resources into fighting and mate guarding--if you have a mate--and raiding and fighting--if you don't. (Herding cultures tend to be like this.) Little "building" takes place.

    But societies where the men cooperate and impose sexual restraint--upon themselves and women--and move from "winner take all" to an effective "you only get one" (for most men), then the society will have dramatically lower internal disputes. Men can put their efforts instead to productive endeavor--and in fact compete for women through productive endeavor, which further enhances genetic productive potential. And men can trust each other and cooperate more. Such societies are both more productive and more cohesive which means they generally beat, out compete and outgrow societies that do not.

    This isn't rocket sciency stuff. It's pretty basic. Where there's a sexual free-for-all men will spend time fighting and mate guarding or perhaps doing nothing much having no particular incentive or investment in the future. Where all--all productive--men can have a wife and have children, men will tend to be productive.

    But now women are "liberated". We have slumped to African style sexual mores ... and we'll slump to African style civilization.

    Replies: @Rosie, @John Johnson

  104. @Reg Cæsar
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco


    When will the leftists start attacking Muslims for their anti-homosexual views?
     
    "Islam is right about gays."

    Likewise, they are right about democracy, Hollywood, marriage, Jews, and, of course, women. You could cover your rear bumper with such ambiguous memes.

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61sJHzXF2GL._AC_SX466_.jpg

    Replies: @Rosie

    ambiguous memes.

    Are the stock-in-trade of the intellectual coward who wants to dog whistle without stating a forthright position thatncan be refuted.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie

    Nah. It's a fun way to watch others' heads explode.

  105. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Desiderius


    Moldbug isn’t completely right
     
    I like his concept of "reset". I just have no idea what institution remains that could conduct it. The various local police departments were an off the wall option. Perhaps Peter Thiel's various funds and business provide a kernel. I would do some work for them for free.

    Replies: @anon, @Desiderius

    None.

    That’s the point. Let them run their course then people will ready for the next thing. We need to have the next thing ready for when they are. By people I mean principally Paul Graham et al.

    And of course help people through the difficult collapse of the existing ones because that’s what you do but that also builds the necessary credibility better than boat and monster truck parades or whatever.

  106. It’s a Chamber alright, but it isn’t US.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Desiderius

    Cosby Johnson looks like the descendant of cheap, worthless "labour" himself. How'd that work out?

  107. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1420177799038619649

    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135958607892481
    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135966086336512

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1420178439227678724

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @AndrewR, @Lurker, @anon, @AnotherDad

    Too bad Phil Spector’s not around anymore. They would be excellent cellmates.

  108. @AndrewR
    @Reg Cæsar

    Lmao "I like it when women act like degenrate whores but god forbid a man does it"

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Lmao “I like it when women act like degenrate whores but god forbid a man does it”

    Compared to long-established perversions such as legal divorce, streaking was relatively innocent. My grandfather did far more damage by that one indiscretion than all his nudist neighbors did over many decades.

    Plus, naked men are eyesores by nature, in a way naked women are not. At least healthy ones. Few women choose to paint male nudes.

  109. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1420177799038619649

    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135958607892481
    https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1420135966086336512

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1420178439227678724

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @AndrewR, @Lurker, @anon, @AnotherDad

    This would be scandalous. But there is no sense of scandal anymore. Our elites give us the finger every day. (See “the border”).

    And–what Andrew said. The only reason this pervert is called to account is that his perversion knocked off a couple black perverts. And in the current Anno Georgius 2, that’s not done. He just didn’t understand that homosexuals were–at least temporarily–below blacks on the hierarchy. But if he’d OD’d a couple whites … TPTB wouldn’t have lifted a finger.

  110. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/RoyBeck_NUSA/status/1420092199379914761?s=20

    https://twitter.com/eduneret/status/1419748379786104836?s=20

    It’s a Chamber alright, but it isn’t US.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Cosby Johnson looks like the descendant of cheap, worthless “labour” himself. How’d that work out?

  111. @JimDandy
    @rebel yell

    Black folks are not in charge now.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Stan Adams

    Neither is this guy:

    • Agree: Paul Jolliffe
  112. @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad

    If we ignore the boring sexual stuff, what do you find repels you from gay men? Your perception of their flamboyance? Or their public displays of vanity?

    You must have some answers in this type of category.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @AnotherDad

    It’s the general aura, I think. The following screenshots are taken from a Truvada advocacy video.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Stan Adams

    Emotional expression of childish self-satisfaction?

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  113. @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    “Civilization” is basically a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so we can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate.
     
    Civilization according to AnotherDad:

    https://youtu.be/E_Q5LnNlwZs

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Yawn. Rosie, I’ve read enough of your stuff to know it’s basically minoritarian feminism. Men exist to give women stuff and have to do it regardless of what women do/how they behave. (No actually we don’t.)

    I freely admit i was sloppy in what i wrote. “Civilization basically requires” might have been a better start and/or then fleshing out where it goes. Maybe something like:

    “Civilization” basically requires a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so they can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate and put their efforts to productive use, which allows men to develop and build stuff.”

    But the point is that constraining sexuality is at heart of it. In ancient pre-history presumably some proto-humans were like chimps and the leading males kept all the females to themselves. But then that only goes on until there’s a successful “coup”. And because the other males are locked out, there’s no point in not trying to do a coup–once you think you have a shot. At some point humans had the mental/communication wherewithal that some tribes enforced some level of sexual equality, and those tribes out competed those that did not.

    But it’s always a battle because–nature. It’s in a man’s genetic interest to impregnate all the women. And in woman’s genetic to be impregnated by the most “fit” successful guy with the most resources. But societies where that goes on, will tend to be violent and low trust. Men will have to put significant resources into fighting and mate guarding–if you have a mate–and raiding and fighting–if you don’t. (Herding cultures tend to be like this.) Little “building” takes place.

    But societies where the men cooperate and impose sexual restraint–upon themselves and women–and move from “winner take all” to an effective “you only get one” (for most men), then the society will have dramatically lower internal disputes. Men can put their efforts instead to productive endeavor–and in fact compete for women through productive endeavor, which further enhances genetic productive potential. And men can trust each other and cooperate more. Such societies are both more productive and more cohesive which means they generally beat, out compete and outgrow societies that do not.

    This isn’t rocket sciency stuff. It’s pretty basic. Where there’s a sexual free-for-all men will spend time fighting and mate guarding or perhaps doing nothing much having no particular incentive or investment in the future. Where all–all productive–men can have a wife and have children, men will tend to be productive.

    But now women are “liberated”. We have slumped to African style sexual mores … and we’ll slump to African style civilization.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    I freely admit i was sloppy in what i wrote.
     
    Good.

    “Civilization” basically requires a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so they can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate and put their efforts to productive use, which allows men to develop and build stuff.”
     
    Still wrong. Access to mates was never the driving force of men killing each other. Access to resources was and still is.

    This isn’t rocket sciency stuff.
     
    Not at all. It's just-so armchair bullshit contrived to place men at the center of the universe and women under their thumb.

    But now women are “liberated”. We have slumped to African style sexual mores … and we’ll slump to African style civilization.
     
    Any slumping to African style civilization will result from the mass importation of Africans, not women's liberation, sexual or otherwise.

    I've been with Mr. Rosie since my early 20s, before which I had several relationships which brought me nothing but heartache. Now I appreciate Mr. Rosie all the more. Since then, he has gone to work to support his family every day for two decades.

    If my son's are unable to follow in his footsteps, it will be because TPTB have looted and sold out the country, not because women aren't virgins when they get married.
    , @John Johnson
    @AnotherDad

    But societies where the men cooperate and impose sexual restraint–upon themselves and women–and move from “winner take all” to an effective “you only get one” (for most men), then the society will have dramatically lower internal disputes.
    ...
    But now women are “liberated”. We have slumped to African style sexual mores … and we’ll slump to African style civilization.

    We don't have an African style tribal society where polygamy is allowed.

    We have a society where:
    Black women can have 6 different "baby daddies" and society (including our cowardly conservatives) does nothing.

    White men are expected to pay for not only their children but the children of Blacks via income taxes.

    So White people are expected to live by certain rules of society and Black people are not.

    It was a group of White democrats that created the welfare system. Our doofus Republicans can't even talk about it because they have embraced race denial and political correctness. I fail to see why all blame should be directed at women when conservative White men have embraced lies about race. You will get banned on conservative websites for stating undeniable facts about biological differences. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that talking about racial differences should be strictly forbidden. Within conservative circles this belief is primarily enforced by men.

  114. @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad

    If we ignore the boring sexual stuff, what do you find repels you from gay men? Your perception of their flamboyance? Or their public displays of vanity?

    You must have some answers in this type of category.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @AnotherDad

    If we ignore the boring sexual stuff, what do you find repels you from gay men? Your perception of their flamboyance? Or their public displays of vanity?

    Huh?

    It is the “boring sexual stuff”. Sex–sex being ordered in society–is at the heart of civilization. So it isn’t exactly a big shocker the people care about it.

    It’s just “human nature”–but it still strikes me as pathetic–that almost everyone thinks that their little minority deserves special handling. “Yeah, yeah all that minoritarian/PC/woke bullshit is ridiculous when its about X, Y but we Z people are entitled to blah, blah, blah.”

    No actually you’re not.

    The only “duty” that any people, nation, civilization has is to protect, maintain and reproduce itself … and reproduce the ability to protect, maintain and reproduce itself. (And ideally reproduce themselves stronger, more productive, more capable … of continuing to protect, maintain and reproduce themselves.)

    Notice the emphasis on “reproduce”. It’s critical. And ergo societies care about it and enforce norms about how it’s done.

    Forget any morality, it is a “logical duty”. Societies that reproduce themselves survive. Those that don’t die.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad

    This is like your mantra and a diversion from my question. I don't believe you are digusted with gay men just because they don't tend to have children. If articial wombs were invented and gay men had TFRs, per couple, of 10, would your disgust with them cease?

    Can we go back to my question and not divert into your self-depressing mantra? If not, I suppose we could address that, but let's stick on one subject, whichever you prefer.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  115. @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    ambiguous memes.
     
    Are the stock-in-trade of the intellectual coward who wants to dog whistle without stating a forthright position thatncan be refuted.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Nah. It’s a fun way to watch others’ heads explode.

  116. anon[180] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    @TruthHurts2k21

    As somewhat of an inverse, I'm waiting for the trad-right to cancel ancient Greece and Rome...

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415223679/
    https://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Greece-Rome-Sourcebook-Documents/dp/0520234308/

    https://www.amazon.com/Pederasty-Pedagogy-Archaic-William-Armstrong/dp/0252022092/

    And, of course, the seminal, revolutionary work that blew the cover on centuries of whitewashing:
    https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Homosexuality-Updated-New-Postscript/dp/0674362705/

    Replies: @anon

    Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents by Thomas K. Hubbard (Editor)

    The most important primary texts on homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome are translated into modern, explicit English and collected together for the first time in this comprehensive sourcebook. Covering an extensive period―from the earliest Greek texts in the late seventh century b.c.e. to Greco-Roman texts of the third and fourth centuries c.e.―the volume includes well-known writings by Plato, Sappho, Aeschines, Catullus, and Juvenal, as well as less well known but highly relevant and intriguing texts such as graffiti, comic fragments, magical papyri, medical treatises, and selected artistic evidence. These fluently translated texts, together with Thomas K. Hubbard’s valuable introductions, clearly show that there was in fact no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today.

    [MORE]

    Images of Ancient Greek Pederasty: Boys were their Gods by Andrew Lear (Author), Eva Cantarella (Author)

    This lavishly illustrated book brings together, for the first time, all of the different ways in which vase-painting portrays or refers to pederasty, from scenes of courtship, foreplay, and sex, to scenes of Zeus with his boy-love Ganymede, to painted inscriptions praising the beauty of boys. The book shows how painters used the language of vase-painting to cast pederasty in an idealizing light, portraying it as part of a world in which beautiful elite males display praiseworthy attitudes, such as moderation, and engage in approved activities, such as hunting, athletics, and the symposium. The book also incorporates a comprehensive catalogue of relevant vase-paintings, compiled by noted archaeologist Keith DeVries. It is the most comprehensive treatment available of an institution that has few modern parallels.

  117. @AnotherDad
    @Triteleia Laxa


    If we ignore the boring sexual stuff, what do you find repels you from gay men? Your perception of their flamboyance? Or their public displays of vanity?
     
    Huh?

    It is the "boring sexual stuff". Sex--sex being ordered in society--is at the heart of civilization. So it isn't exactly a big shocker the people care about it.


    It's just "human nature"--but it still strikes me as pathetic--that almost everyone thinks that their little minority deserves special handling. "Yeah, yeah all that minoritarian/PC/woke bullshit is ridiculous when its about X, Y but we Z people are entitled to blah, blah, blah."

    No actually you're not.

    The only "duty" that any people, nation, civilization has is to protect, maintain and reproduce itself ... and reproduce the ability to protect, maintain and reproduce itself. (And ideally reproduce themselves stronger, more productive, more capable ... of continuing to protect, maintain and reproduce themselves.)

    Notice the emphasis on "reproduce". It's critical. And ergo societies care about it and enforce norms about how it's done.

    Forget any morality, it is a "logical duty". Societies that reproduce themselves survive. Those that don't die.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    This is like your mantra and a diversion from my question. I don’t believe you are digusted with gay men just because they don’t tend to have children. If articial wombs were invented and gay men had TFRs, per couple, of 10, would your disgust with them cease?

    Can we go back to my question and not divert into your self-depressing mantra? If not, I suppose we could address that, but let’s stick on one subject, whichever you prefer.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Triteleia Laxa

    This is like your mantra and a diversion from my question. I don’t believe you are digusted with gay men just because they don’t tend to have children. If articial wombs were invented and gay men had TFRs, per couple, of 10, would your disgust with them cease?

    Most gay men aren't interested in children or society.

    If you want to be disgusted by gay men then spend time around them.

    Only White people isolated in the burbs can entertain these TV fantasies of gay men being completely normal except for their sex partner.

    Here is a glimpse of what you don't see on TV:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gay-men-meth-risk-idUSTRE7726UR20110803

  118. @Stan Adams
    @Triteleia Laxa

    It's the general aura, I think. The following screenshots are taken from a Truvada advocacy video.



    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen19.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen20.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen18.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen21.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen23.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen24.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen22.jpg

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f33/18/88/87/60/screen25.jpg

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Emotional expression of childish self-satisfaction?

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I responded to your comment with a charming anecdote from the annals of proctology, but evidently the story was a bit too graphic.

    Suffice it to say that wearing white is not always advisable.

  119. @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I find that homophobia does describe a real phenomena,

    Please explicate.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays. They may also have rational fears and the label “homophobia” may often be misused, but the real phenomenon remains.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of "homophobia" is "irrational fear of sameness". It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word.

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays.

    How do you know when someone else's fear is rational or irrational?
    How do you distinguish between irrational fear and rational disgust?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Bill Jones
    @Triteleia Laxa

    What would constitute an irrational fear of homosexual's?

    , @John Johnson
    @Triteleia Laxa

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays. They may also have rational fears and the label “homophobia” may often be misused, but the real phenomenon remains.

    Why is not possible to simply not like gays?

    Why is this allowed:
    I don't like White men and don't want anything to do with them.

    But this is an irrational fear:
    I don't like gays and don't want anything to do with them.

    Explain using logical terms please.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  120. @AnotherDad
    @Rosie

    Yawn. Rosie, I've read enough of your stuff to know it's basically minoritarian feminism. Men exist to give women stuff and have to do it regardless of what women do/how they behave. (No actually we don't.)

    I freely admit i was sloppy in what i wrote. "Civilization basically requires" might have been a better start and/or then fleshing out where it goes. Maybe something like:

    “Civilization” basically requires a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so they can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate and put their efforts to productive use, which allows men to develop and build stuff."

    But the point is that constraining sexuality is at heart of it. In ancient pre-history presumably some proto-humans were like chimps and the leading males kept all the females to themselves. But then that only goes on until there's a successful "coup". And because the other males are locked out, there's no point in not trying to do a coup--once you think you have a shot. At some point humans had the mental/communication wherewithal that some tribes enforced some level of sexual equality, and those tribes out competed those that did not.

    But it's always a battle because--nature. It's in a man's genetic interest to impregnate all the women. And in woman's genetic to be impregnated by the most "fit" successful guy with the most resources. But societies where that goes on, will tend to be violent and low trust. Men will have to put significant resources into fighting and mate guarding--if you have a mate--and raiding and fighting--if you don't. (Herding cultures tend to be like this.) Little "building" takes place.

    But societies where the men cooperate and impose sexual restraint--upon themselves and women--and move from "winner take all" to an effective "you only get one" (for most men), then the society will have dramatically lower internal disputes. Men can put their efforts instead to productive endeavor--and in fact compete for women through productive endeavor, which further enhances genetic productive potential. And men can trust each other and cooperate more. Such societies are both more productive and more cohesive which means they generally beat, out compete and outgrow societies that do not.

    This isn't rocket sciency stuff. It's pretty basic. Where there's a sexual free-for-all men will spend time fighting and mate guarding or perhaps doing nothing much having no particular incentive or investment in the future. Where all--all productive--men can have a wife and have children, men will tend to be productive.

    But now women are "liberated". We have slumped to African style sexual mores ... and we'll slump to African style civilization.

    Replies: @Rosie, @John Johnson

    I freely admit i was sloppy in what i wrote.

    Good.

    “Civilization” basically requires a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so they can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate and put their efforts to productive use, which allows men to develop and build stuff.”

    Still wrong. Access to mates was never the driving force of men killing each other. Access to resources was and still is.

    This isn’t rocket sciency stuff.

    Not at all. It’s just-so armchair bullshit contrived to place men at the center of the universe and women under their thumb.

    But now women are “liberated”. We have slumped to African style sexual mores … and we’ll slump to African style civilization.

    Any slumping to African style civilization will result from the mass importation of Africans, not women’s liberation, sexual or otherwise.

    I’ve been with Mr. Rosie since my early 20s, before which I had several relationships which brought me nothing but heartache. Now I appreciate Mr. Rosie all the more. Since then, he has gone to work to support his family every day for two decades.

    If my son’s are unable to follow in his footsteps, it will be because TPTB have looted and sold out the country, not because women aren’t virgins when they get married.

  121. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays. They may also have rational fears and the label "homophobia" may often be misused, but the real phenomenon remains.

    Replies: @anon, @Bill Jones, @John Johnson

    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of “homophobia” is “irrational fear of sameness”. It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word.

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays.

    How do you know when someone else’s fear is rational or irrational?
    How do you distinguish between irrational fear and rational disgust?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon


    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of “homophobia” is “irrational fear of sameness”. It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word
     
    I just saw a man scream "you f*cking homo" at another on the street. I told him that he was saying that the flamboyant victim of his abuse was actually the same as him. He told me to "stop being pedantic" and to "not confuse pointing out irregularities in English for an argument." What should I have said back?

    How do you know when someone else’s fear is rational or irrational?
    How do you distinguish between irrational fear and rational disgust?
     
    With difficulty. Is that fear and disgust supporting or hindering you? You can start by asking if there is a plainly rational reason, which they can coherently articulate, and, if not, you can work in from there. The more frail and messy it is on the outside, the less likely it is something connected to who they are right now. There are also other ways, but this is the most ordinary. How do you work through your own fears?

    Replies: @anon

  122. @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of "homophobia" is "irrational fear of sameness". It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word.

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays.

    How do you know when someone else's fear is rational or irrational?
    How do you distinguish between irrational fear and rational disgust?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of “homophobia” is “irrational fear of sameness”. It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word

    I just saw a man scream “you f*cking homo” at another on the street. I told him that he was saying that the flamboyant victim of his abuse was actually the same as him. He told me to “stop being pedantic” and to “not confuse pointing out irregularities in English for an argument.” What should I have said back?

    How do you know when someone else’s fear is rational or irrational?
    How do you distinguish between irrational fear and rational disgust?

    With difficulty. Is that fear and disgust supporting or hindering you? You can start by asking if there is a plainly rational reason, which they can coherently articulate, and, if not, you can work in from there. The more frail and messy it is on the outside, the less likely it is something connected to who they are right now. There are also other ways, but this is the most ordinary. How do you work through your own fears?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    What should I have said back?

    "Have a nice day", as you depart.

    Now tell me, did a man on the street prone to scream "f*cking homo" then turn 'round and accuse you of being pedantic? Really? Truly?

    lol

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  123. @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon


    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of “homophobia” is “irrational fear of sameness”. It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word
     
    I just saw a man scream "you f*cking homo" at another on the street. I told him that he was saying that the flamboyant victim of his abuse was actually the same as him. He told me to "stop being pedantic" and to "not confuse pointing out irregularities in English for an argument." What should I have said back?

    How do you know when someone else’s fear is rational or irrational?
    How do you distinguish between irrational fear and rational disgust?
     
    With difficulty. Is that fear and disgust supporting or hindering you? You can start by asking if there is a plainly rational reason, which they can coherently articulate, and, if not, you can work in from there. The more frail and messy it is on the outside, the less likely it is something connected to who they are right now. There are also other ways, but this is the most ordinary. How do you work through your own fears?

    Replies: @anon

    What should I have said back?

    “Have a nice day”, as you depart.

    Now tell me, did a man on the street prone to scream “f*cking homo” then turn ’round and accuse you of being pedantic? Really? Truly?

    lol

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon


    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of “homophobia” is “irrational fear of sameness”. It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word
     
    Stop being pedantic and don't confuse pointing out irregularities in English for an argument.

    Replies: @anon

  124. @AndrewR
    @AnotherDad

    There is no doubt whatsoever that younger generations have less aversion/disgust towards homosexual behavior than older generations do. Such aversion/disgust might be natural to some extent, and if it is natural then the extent of it surely varies from person to person, but clearly there is a socially constructed aspect to it to. You grew up at a time when homosexuality was almost universally considered to be a bad thing. It would require a remarkable lack of humility and self-reflection, not to mention a complete ignorance of history and sociology, to assume your attitudes towards these things weren't at least partially a function of the time and place you were born into. You don't need to change your beliefs one iota to acknowledge that, if you were younger, you would more than likely be less hostile towards homosexuality.

    Replies: @Wency

    I don’t think the aversion needs to be built up at all, but it can be suppressed.

    That said, I think more aversion exists under the surface than is sometimes assumed. I recall roughly 15 years ago, hanging out with a leftist fellow Millennial in San Francisco (a friend of a friend) who assumed that I, too, was a leftist. And out of the blue, after a few beers, he started confiding in me (while repeatedly assuring me of his leftist credentials) that he really, really didn’t want to see gay men engaging in PDAs.

    There’s also still not all that much explicit gay male affection happening on TV, even on shows aimed at younger generations that feature lots of gay characters (they’re much more OK with showing lesbian affection, which doesn’t trigger the disgust reflex).

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Wency

    I know openly gay men who don't like seeing gay PDAs.

  125. @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays. They may also have rational fears and the label "homophobia" may often be misused, but the real phenomenon remains.

    Replies: @anon, @Bill Jones, @John Johnson

    What would constitute an irrational fear of homosexual’s?

  126. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/sciam/status/1366409731137540106

    Replies: @Pericles, @Herp McDerp

    How shocking! James Webb worked for the federal government and obeyed the law. The four authors don’t present convincing evidence that he did so zealously and enthusiastically. Why not disavow other things named after other office-holders of that era who behaved similarly, such as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Space Center?

  127. @Triteleia Laxa
    @AnotherDad

    This is like your mantra and a diversion from my question. I don't believe you are digusted with gay men just because they don't tend to have children. If articial wombs were invented and gay men had TFRs, per couple, of 10, would your disgust with them cease?

    Can we go back to my question and not divert into your self-depressing mantra? If not, I suppose we could address that, but let's stick on one subject, whichever you prefer.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    This is like your mantra and a diversion from my question. I don’t believe you are digusted with gay men just because they don’t tend to have children. If articial wombs were invented and gay men had TFRs, per couple, of 10, would your disgust with them cease?

    Most gay men aren’t interested in children or society.

    If you want to be disgusted by gay men then spend time around them.

    Only White people isolated in the burbs can entertain these TV fantasies of gay men being completely normal except for their sex partner.

    Here is a glimpse of what you don’t see on TV:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gay-men-meth-risk-idUSTRE7726UR20110803

  128. @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays. They may also have rational fears and the label "homophobia" may often be misused, but the real phenomenon remains.

    Replies: @anon, @Bill Jones, @John Johnson

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays. They may also have rational fears and the label “homophobia” may often be misused, but the real phenomenon remains.

    Why is not possible to simply not like gays?

    Why is this allowed:
    I don’t like White men and don’t want anything to do with them.

    But this is an irrational fear:
    I don’t like gays and don’t want anything to do with them.

    Explain using logical terms please.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @John Johnson


    Why is not possible to simply not like gays?
     
    I'd question how you dislike someone you don't know, but I never said it wasn't possible.

    Why is this allowed:
    I don’t like White men and don’t want anything to do with them.
     
    Few white men show that they are hurt by it. This leads ordinary people to reasonably assume that they aren't.

    But this is an irrational fear:
    I don’t like gays and don’t want anything to do with them.
     
    They're both usually the result of irrational fears.
  129. @AnotherDad
    @Rosie

    Yawn. Rosie, I've read enough of your stuff to know it's basically minoritarian feminism. Men exist to give women stuff and have to do it regardless of what women do/how they behave. (No actually we don't.)

    I freely admit i was sloppy in what i wrote. "Civilization basically requires" might have been a better start and/or then fleshing out where it goes. Maybe something like:

    “Civilization” basically requires a cooperative deal among men to “fairly” divide up access to women/reproduction so they can stop fighting and mate guarding and cooperate and put their efforts to productive use, which allows men to develop and build stuff."

    But the point is that constraining sexuality is at heart of it. In ancient pre-history presumably some proto-humans were like chimps and the leading males kept all the females to themselves. But then that only goes on until there's a successful "coup". And because the other males are locked out, there's no point in not trying to do a coup--once you think you have a shot. At some point humans had the mental/communication wherewithal that some tribes enforced some level of sexual equality, and those tribes out competed those that did not.

    But it's always a battle because--nature. It's in a man's genetic interest to impregnate all the women. And in woman's genetic to be impregnated by the most "fit" successful guy with the most resources. But societies where that goes on, will tend to be violent and low trust. Men will have to put significant resources into fighting and mate guarding--if you have a mate--and raiding and fighting--if you don't. (Herding cultures tend to be like this.) Little "building" takes place.

    But societies where the men cooperate and impose sexual restraint--upon themselves and women--and move from "winner take all" to an effective "you only get one" (for most men), then the society will have dramatically lower internal disputes. Men can put their efforts instead to productive endeavor--and in fact compete for women through productive endeavor, which further enhances genetic productive potential. And men can trust each other and cooperate more. Such societies are both more productive and more cohesive which means they generally beat, out compete and outgrow societies that do not.

    This isn't rocket sciency stuff. It's pretty basic. Where there's a sexual free-for-all men will spend time fighting and mate guarding or perhaps doing nothing much having no particular incentive or investment in the future. Where all--all productive--men can have a wife and have children, men will tend to be productive.

    But now women are "liberated". We have slumped to African style sexual mores ... and we'll slump to African style civilization.

    Replies: @Rosie, @John Johnson

    But societies where the men cooperate and impose sexual restraint–upon themselves and women–and move from “winner take all” to an effective “you only get one” (for most men), then the society will have dramatically lower internal disputes.

    But now women are “liberated”. We have slumped to African style sexual mores … and we’ll slump to African style civilization.

    We don’t have an African style tribal society where polygamy is allowed.

    We have a society where:
    Black women can have 6 different “baby daddies” and society (including our cowardly conservatives) does nothing.

    White men are expected to pay for not only their children but the children of Blacks via income taxes.

    So White people are expected to live by certain rules of society and Black people are not.

    It was a group of White democrats that created the welfare system. Our doofus Republicans can’t even talk about it because they have embraced race denial and political correctness. I fail to see why all blame should be directed at women when conservative White men have embraced lies about race. You will get banned on conservative websites for stating undeniable facts about biological differences. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that talking about racial differences should be strictly forbidden. Within conservative circles this belief is primarily enforced by men.

  130. @John Johnson
    @Triteleia Laxa

    There are people who have irrational fears of gays. They may also have rational fears and the label “homophobia” may often be misused, but the real phenomenon remains.

    Why is not possible to simply not like gays?

    Why is this allowed:
    I don't like White men and don't want anything to do with them.

    But this is an irrational fear:
    I don't like gays and don't want anything to do with them.

    Explain using logical terms please.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Why is not possible to simply not like gays?

    I’d question how you dislike someone you don’t know, but I never said it wasn’t possible.

    Why is this allowed:
    I don’t like White men and don’t want anything to do with them.

    Few white men show that they are hurt by it. This leads ordinary people to reasonably assume that they aren’t.

    But this is an irrational fear:
    I don’t like gays and don’t want anything to do with them.

    They’re both usually the result of irrational fears.

  131. @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    What should I have said back?

    "Have a nice day", as you depart.

    Now tell me, did a man on the street prone to scream "f*cking homo" then turn 'round and accuse you of being pedantic? Really? Truly?

    lol

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of “homophobia” is “irrational fear of sameness”. It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word

    Stop being pedantic and don’t confuse pointing out irregularities in English for an argument.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Now tell me, did a man on the street prone to scream “f*cking homo” then turn ’round and accuse you of being pedantic? Really? Truly?

    C'mon, you and your associate(s) can do better.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  132. Professors who ask their students if they are relativists usually report that the students say yes. The contradiction between wokeness and relativism is resolved if you consider that wokeness is justified in terms of harm reduction, and harm is not a value. Harm is an objective thing, like pain, or mental health, or feeling unsafe. Whereas a non-relativist might say that winning a gold medal is superior to not winning, the relativist will say that the experience of pain (and its reduction) is real whereas the alleged superiority of winning is just your opinion, man.

    • Agree: Yngvar
  133. @Wency
    @AndrewR

    I don't think the aversion needs to be built up at all, but it can be suppressed.

    That said, I think more aversion exists under the surface than is sometimes assumed. I recall roughly 15 years ago, hanging out with a leftist fellow Millennial in San Francisco (a friend of a friend) who assumed that I, too, was a leftist. And out of the blue, after a few beers, he started confiding in me (while repeatedly assuring me of his leftist credentials) that he really, really didn't want to see gay men engaging in PDAs.

    There's also still not all that much explicit gay male affection happening on TV, even on shows aimed at younger generations that feature lots of gay characters (they're much more OK with showing lesbian affection, which doesn't trigger the disgust reflex).

    Replies: @AndrewR

    I know openly gay men who don’t like seeing gay PDAs.

  134. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Stan Adams

    Emotional expression of childish self-satisfaction?

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    I responded to your comment with a charming anecdote from the annals of proctology, but evidently the story was a bit too graphic.

    Suffice it to say that wearing white is not always advisable.

  135. @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon


    Please note: however much the term is misused, the literal definition of “homophobia” is “irrational fear of sameness”. It is just not actually a term for communication, it is something else. Whereas hoplophobia is actually a useful word
     
    Stop being pedantic and don't confuse pointing out irregularities in English for an argument.

    Replies: @anon

    Now tell me, did a man on the street prone to scream “f*cking homo” then turn ’round and accuse you of being pedantic? Really? Truly?

    C’mon, you and your associate(s) can do better.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @anon

    I was joking

  136. @anon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Now tell me, did a man on the street prone to scream “f*cking homo” then turn ’round and accuse you of being pedantic? Really? Truly?

    C'mon, you and your associate(s) can do better.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I was joking

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World