Wisconsin
The thing about this is the air of confident certainty and enlightenment – in short the staggering vanity. She talks the most unmitigated bilge and she carries herself as if she were Hannah Arendt and Nelson Mandela combined.
Tip Jar
The thing about this is the air of confident certainty and enlightenment – in short the staggering vanity. She talks the most unmitigated bilge and she carries herself as if she were Hannah Arendt and Nelson Mandela combined.
Is there a place I can go to return my “G”?
I’m tired of this Alfabet Kummunittee shit and wish for a new designator.
There are so many books she could be studying, and teachers she could be interacting with, to gain some understanding of these topics that seem to concern her.
The problem with questions like: “What does it mean to be a …” is that this wording contains at least two questions and it isn’t always clear which question is asked.
The first question is asking for the denotation of the word. How is the word defined.
The second question is more like asking for the connotation of the word. What are the expectations society has for …? What are your own expectations? How does a life as … generally look like?
Those two meaning come together when someone says something like: Men of today are not (real) men any more.
Piffle.
LGBT is not a cohesive “community,” because T is doing its level best to screw over LGB.She /they / him? So we are required to say, for example, “I would avoid him, she’s completely nuts?” But the same sentence with ” her” and he’s” would be misgendering… him?
That just reminded me of a conversation I overheard in a cafe in deepest, darkest North Wales a little while ago. The manager said something cheerful about a baby, using “he”, and then said “He? She? Sorry, I know we’re not supposed to assume now” and the mother said “Ooh yes I think he’s a they until he’s old enough to – aww I can’t even keep it straight to make a joke about it!”
Fortunately, nobody reported the incident to the gender police.
Heh! Hooray for North Wales!
axxyaan:
I was about to make nearly the same comment. For either of these notions (“what it means to be a man,” “what it means to be a woman”) to make any sense, we first need to agree on what the words “man” and “woman” refer to. These nitwits seem to think that everyone shares their conception of “man” and “woman” as being new-age-type spiritual essences; they figure their opponents merely disagree on who gets which. And so they end up bumbling through their attempts at argumentation in a manner quite reminescent of those “atheists hate Gods” people.
And the similarity doesn’t stop there! I’ve noticed both are very fond of making “arguments” that rely on the following thinking:
– Two propositions A and B are incompatible, i. e. if A is true then B is false;
– A is false;
– Therefore, B is true.
Which is how we end up with the likes of:
– Females can be infertile and femininity is a social construct and males can be eunuchs, therefore sex doesn’t exist and everyone has a magical sacrosanct gender soul and society should be organized around this.
– Quantum physics is complicated and you can’t evolve a dog into a cat, therefore everything in the Bible is true.
Well said.
@7 I’ve probably mentioned here before that I once wrote a review of this very long book:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3037853-galileo-was-wrong
which uses essentially the same argument structure – cosmologists and astrophysicists have made mistakes in the past, and can’t explain some phenomena (and also many famous scientists were bad men), therefore Earth must be the centre of the universe. (There’s some more interestingly-argued stuff in there as well, but that’s the gist of it.)