luka

Well-known member
This is something vimothy does a lot too. It's very coy, not brave and manly. If you want to make a case against the trans gender lot and explain how they undermine and pervert our innate need for secure boundaries and difference then make that case yourself. Don't point us to an article which makes that case while allowing you to distance yourself from it if need be. Where are your martial virtues? We should always be strong and manly in our arguing.
 

droid

Well-known member

Brimming with intelligence, replete with insight, a tour de force.

If one reviews the language of Donald Trump in the three presidential debates, or the speeches of Stephen Bannon, or the articles on Breitbart News, or the political films, such as Generation Zero, produced by Citizens United, or the ideas of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, or the assessment of the “unraveling” of our culture by conservative historians William Strauss and Neil Howe[x]—one does not find racism and ignorance.

women_interviews.jpg


birth_control.jpg


stone_abedin.jpg


harassment.jpg


cbs.jpg


NAACP.jpg

trump_breitbart.jpg

mlk-geller.jpg
 
Last edited:

firefinga

Well-known member
100% vehemently disagree w/anyone saying deep state >>> Trump.

What is "The Deep State" to begin with? If you mean bureaucracies within branches of governments which usually have seasoned key personell outlasting the usual 4-5 year election circles than ANY western world country has such. Of course when a unfathomable POTUS (or any other leader) gets into power people within said bureaucracies take measures to protect their status/career etc. But those thigns are hardly the "Deep State" Shadow govenrment X-File-smoking-guy style puppet masters the left- and right wing conspiracy nutters want them to be.
 

Benny Bunter

Well-known member

you must be joking, right?

For this reason, there one aspect of the Agenda that is becoming increasingly apparent : The feminization of the male and the masculinization of the female. Under the guise of “empowerment”, men who act like females and females who act like men are not only accepted, but celebrated. I personally do not have a problem with that. I DO have a problem with the other side of this agenda: Men who act like traditional men (and do not feel the need to apologize for it) are now portrayed as evil and wrong. And, all of a sudden, portraying a stay-at-home mom who takes pride in cooking for her family is considered “sexist”.

In other words, it is about a complete reversal of gender roles. Simply by looking at our genetic make-up and the behavior of most mammals, one can observe that males are engineered to hunt, provide and protect while females are made to “nest”, care and nurture, While modern living has made these traits less dominant, they are nevertheless part of our core being. And mass media is heavily focusing on promoting the exact opposite of this. It is about the attacking the mind with messages that conflict with our natural inclinations.

This is sexist, biological determinist nonsense.
 

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
If one reviews the language of Donald Trump in the three presidential debates, or the speeches of Stephen Bannon, or the articles on Breitbart News, or the political films, such as Generation Zero, produced by Citizens United, or the ideas of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, or the assessment of the “unraveling” of our culture by conservative historians William Strauss and Neil Howe[x]—one does not find racism and ignorance.

Sure - one finds racism and ignorance. The question is: What else is there?

Seems to me, the only way you can have a meaningful political discussion with someone who you don't agree with (and what is the point in discussing politics with anybody else) is by moving past abusive signifiers and concentrating on the fundamental issues.

Otherwise, people just scream at each other. And where does that get us?
 

luka

Well-known member
This is what I've been asking you and vimothy to map out. You made a start. It's a worthwhile project.
 

droid

Well-known member
Sure - one finds racism and ignorance. The question is: What else is there?

Seems to me, the only way you can have a meaningful political discussion with someone who you don't agree with (and what is the point in discussing politics with anybody else) is by moving past abusive signifiers and concentrating on the fundamental issues.

Otherwise, people just scream at each other. And where does that get us?

Im just curious why you claimed this was an 'intelligent conservative article' when self evidently, the opposite is true.

But on the wider point, 'abusive signifiers' are very often accurate. Try arguing with an Orangeman about Catholic rights in NI, an ultra Zionist about the green line, a Teabagger about BLM & systematic racism in the US.

There is no common ground. The fundamental issue is that these groups see any compromise as a threat to traditionally held power and their entitlement to it, and will violently resist any attempt to erode it.
 

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
Im just curious why you claimed this was an 'intelligent conservative article' when self evidently, the opposite is true.

I honestly think that it is an intelligent conservative article - certainly, it isn't absolutely stupid. It presents a conservative case using reason and logic. You may not agree with all of it, or any of it (I personally seldom even agree with myself) but I think are some valid points there.

Among them -

1) Arguments about the sociology of understanding vs the sociology of unmasking.

2) The fundamental weakness/hollowness of Clinton's diversity platform.

3) An idea of the reassertion of borders against the borderless Left as the essence of Trumpism.

But on the wider point, 'abusive signifiers' are very often accurate. Try arguing with an Orangeman about Catholic rights in NI, an ultra Zionist about the green line, a Teabagger about BLM & systematic racism in the US.

There is no common ground. The fundamental issue is that these groups see any compromise as a threat to traditionally held power and their entitlement to it, and will violently resist any attempt to erode it.

I think it is highly desirable, ethically, to try to find reason and principle in the position of the other, as opposed to defense of entitlement/power and I don't think it is ever impossible, at least theoretically (in practice it might be). It is also performative. As such, I don't agree with you about the designation of the fundamental issue...
 

Benny Bunter

Well-known member
regarding that article josef posted and transgender, I think this diagram illustrates the differences in position and where they overlap quite nicely

 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I actually read her autobiography last year. I learnt a lot about Alaska.

It's massive.
It's cold.
It has oil.
It's near Russia.
Some of the people who live there are rednecks, and some of them are eskimos. Perhaps also small transient populations of geophysicists (see point 3) and ecologists/climatologists, who presumably hate each other.

What else could anyone wish to know about Alaska?
 
Top