The Insane "Social Justice" Thread pt IV

[jamil]

Perhaps you should include the temporal component - you know, so your thinking isn't so binary/two dimensional

Perhaps a post, answering a previous post, should be viewed in the light of the quoted post it is answering and not expected to answer any temporally subsequent post of yours simply because of where each occurs on the timeline

I am showing you that your invocation of Locke, as contained in those 'enlightenment ideals' you are so enamored of, comes with some additional baggage (from what would seem to be your viewpoint) with the added caveat that most of the founding fathers would have had little to no problem with his view of the Bible

I find it ridiculous that people who insisted Trump wasn't squeaky clean enough to represent THEIR Republican Party will cleave to a mentally insane, self-mutilating freak who happens to embody the perverse flavor of the moment. It smacks of opportunism and desperation

That is not a woman and never will be, and to enable and encourage that delusion is in and of itself a crime against humanity. It is the rough equivalent, to me, of supporting a candidate who thinks he is Captain Kangaroo under the guise that the delusion is harmless as long as he mouths the proper platitudes. For someone who can't even accept the election was corrupt without absolute proof, one wonders when you will cite proof, beyond your personal predilections, that supporting and lionizing this thing will in any way help or broaden republican support in California - which after all should be the goal. Losing sight of that just makes it another 'First [insert current cause célèbre here] candidate ever'

How did that Bootyjudge thing work out

I'm not gonna clutter this thread on that. We can take this part offline or start a new thread.

 

[jamil]

Sorry for the diversion folks, but this is on topic of insane social justice so...

Cool. Supporting an obviously mentally defective person, operating under the delusion they are a woman despite possessing XY genetics, is driven by misplaced social justice concerns and de facto insane - so, fits the category

I'm the one who started the original insane social justice thread. That was sometime around 2014 or 2015. Back then I didn't know what all this insane stuff that people were saying was all about. I just knew that people were saying insane things and they were calling it "social justice". I think I have a much better understanding of what it is now. And I probably wouldn't name it that now, but it works still.

I don't doubt that Jenner has a mental issue. I don't have a reason to believe his "transition" is primarily motivated by anything other than gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. So though it is a mental disorder, I don't think it has anything to do with "insane social justice". Of course the wokeists have latched onto transgenderism as a way to tear down sexual norms. So it's hard to separate transgenders from the woke ********. But there is a separation. When they preened around virtue-signaling that Jenner is "stunning and brave", that was the woke part. That Jenner is actually transgender, I think that's probably legit. Stunning and brave? I dunno. That's pretty subjective.

And, once again I have to remind you of the false binary; advocating to not be an ******* to Jenner is not the same thing as supporting Jenner. I don't even know Jenner's platform. I'm not advocating that anyone should vote for him (although for Californians probably just about anyone right of Newsom is better than Newsom).

 

[jamil]

Sexist. It can be any one of the 87 genders!

Incidentally, I think the first post in the original insane social justice thread, was that it was 58 genders? it was fifty-something. Let's say 58. So they've added only 29 genders in 5 or 6 years? I'd have thought it would be more.

 

[jamil]

Stop calling those insects "gypsy moth" and "gypsy ant," you racist pig!

https://www.entsoc.org/entomological-society-america-discontinues-use-gypsy-moth-ant-names

Yeah, that's ridiculous.

 

[jamil]

Watching a bit of the Weather Channel. Being 'treated' to a PSA* (propaganda service announcement) about how the poor/PoC suffer from a lack of 'tree equity'. The evil rich white people (ERWP?) have more trees in their neighborhoods - I assume because of racism

Kicker is apparently we need to fund mass tree planting, at the cost of billions, to rectify the 'problem'. No timeline given for how long that might take

I think I've seen this episode before

Tree Equity Score Project - American Forests

Tree Equity Score helps cities in the United States address social inequities and climate change impacts nationwide.

www.americanforests.org

Institutional racism is determined by the outcomes for a given minority group not having the exact proportionality of their population in a society. So if there are fewer trees in Black neighborhoods, there can't be any other cause. No. It's racism.

 

[jamil]

Jeez
Now some people either don't know where milk comes from, or thinks ideology trumps biology.

That's insane.

 

[KLB]

That's insane.

That is true on many levels with those two.

 

[printcraft]

https://vidmax.com/video/205685-welcome-to-once-beautiful-portland-now-a-progressive-nightmare

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sorry for the diversion folks, but this is on topic of insane social justice so...


I'm the one who started the original insane social justice thread. That was sometime around 2014 or 2015. Back then I didn't know what all this insane stuff that people were saying was all about. I just knew that people were saying insane things and they were calling it "social justice". I think I have a much better understanding of what it is now. And I probably wouldn't name it that now, but it works still.

I don't doubt that Jenner has a mental issue. I don't have a reason to believe his "transition" is primarily motivated by anything other than gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. So though it is a mental disorder, I don't think it has anything to do with "insane social justice". Of course the wokeists have latched onto transgenderism as a way to tear down sexual norms. So it's hard to separate transgenders from the woke ********. But there is a separation. When they preened around virtue-signaling that Jenner is "stunning and brave", that was the woke part. That Jenner is actually transgender, I think that's probably legit. Stunning and brave? I dunno. That's pretty subjective.

And, once again I have to remind you of the false binary; advocating to not be an ******* to Jenner is not the same thing as supporting Jenner. I don't even know Jenner's platform. I'm not advocating that anyone should vote for him (although for Californians probably just about anyone right of Newsom is better than Newsom).

It becomes insane social justice when the rest of us are expected to participate in the delusion. While I agree so far as not directing animus toward Jenner, as for CPAC or any other agency of conservative politics, I believe a position similar to Reagan's comment about Gary Hart and the shenanigans on the good ship Monkey Business apply--Boys will be boys but they won't be president. Similarly, I believe it outside the boundaries of conservatism to give such a troubled individual a platform.

 

[2A_Tom]

It becomes insane social justice when the rest of us are expected to participate in the delusion. While I agree so far as not directing animus toward Jenner, as for CPAC or any other agency of conservative politics, I believe a position similar to Reagan's comment about Gary Hart and the shenanigans on the good ship Monkey Business apply--Boys will be boys but they won't be president. Similarly, I believe it outside the boundaries of conservatism to give such a troubled individual a platform.

This is a well reasoned response.

+1 for invoking Ronaldo Maximus.

 

[jamil]

It becomes insane social justice when the rest of us are expected to participate in the delusion. While I agree so far as not directing animus toward Jenner, as for CPAC or any other agency of conservative politics, I believe a position similar to Reagan's comment about Gary Hart and the shenanigans on the good ship Monkey Business apply--Boys will be boys but they won't be president. Similarly, I believe it outside the boundaries of conservatism to give such a troubled individual a platform.

I don't have a problem with him speaking at CPAC as long as he doesn't promote ideas discordant with CPAC values. I suppose one could argue that his presence there promotes transgenderism, which I think is a woke idea. But I don't judge his situation as an 'ism'. I see it as he has a legitimate disorder. I can't say that I agree with his solution. The suicide rate for people with gender dysphoria (the real ones, not the socially transgender wannabes) is 40%. It's no different whether they've transitioned or not. That 40% is based on some older information, but I suspect it's still in that range.

But transitioning is what the American Psychological Association recommends now. I suspect that org has become infested with wokeness as well. If there's not clear evidence that transitioning produces a better quality of life, I don't know why, other than activism, that they're suggesting it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But transitioning is what the American Psychological Association recommends now. I suspect that org has become infested with wokeness as well. If there's not clear evidence that transitioning produces a better quality of life, I don't know why, other than activism, that they're suggesting it.

Let me offer an answer. The radical left not only promotes abortion but attacks any alternatives offered by those who oppose it, like caring for mothers through childbirth and facilitating adoption. They promote homosexuality to the point of endorsing it over being straight. They are doubling down on promoting surgically-altered transgenderism. What do all these have in common? We start at exterminating the unborn, follow up with relationships that cannot procreate, and then move on to surgically altering people so they cannot procreate. It looks like they want us to die off.

 

[jwamplerusa]

It looks like they want us to die off.

Fixes that over population problem, doesn't it? Chicomm flu helped too...

Just making more room for the desirable people, versus the deplorables.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Fixes that over population problem, doesn't it? Chicomm flu helped too...

Just making more room for the desirable people, versus the deplorables.

Well let's think about this for a second. I'd wager that most transgender people are left leaning (Jenner notwithstanding). So maybe we should encourage them to make themselves unable to procreate.

 

[2A_Tom]

They will go after the children. Funny, how the libtards have no problem with that.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

But transitioning is what the American Psychological Association recommends now. I suspect that org has become infested with wokeness as well. If there's not clear evidence that transitioning produces a better quality of life, I don't know why, other than activism, that they're suggesting it.

The "father" of transition surgery recommended against it after years of performing the surgery because the suicide rate remained the same iirc.

 

[jsx1043]

Let me offer an answer. The radical left not only promotes abortion but attacks any alternatives offered by those who oppose it, like caring for mothers through childbirth and facilitating adoption. They promote homosexuality to the point of endorsing it over being straight. They are doubling down on promoting surgically-altered transgenderism. What do all these have in common? We start at exterminating the unborn, follow up with relationships that cannot procreate, and then move on to surgically altering people so they cannot procreate. It looks like they want us to die off.

 

[IndyDave1776]

View attachment 148591

A picture is worth a thousand words!