Or in summation: all the terms you describe serve one and one function alone:
Dehumanisation of a race.
That is the first step in industrialised genocide (as opposed to "natural" such, as in Rwanda f.e.).
Witness South Africa, where millions of blacks chant "Kill the boer!" When will blacks, pakis, et c in Britain do the same? What will the response from the actualreal british people be?
Making excuses and bringing up historical factoids from the Empire-era would bemy bet, since the alternative is to accept the overt threat as real and promise, and act upon it.
Which is racist, when "white people" do it, and being racist is much worse than defending one's race, people, culture and nation against extermination. If you're white, of course. Or a christian indigenous people in MENA.
The goal is the extermination - the final solution - of all the european and european descended peoples, not necessarily by a grand plan by secret conspirators but as an inevitable consequence of almost a century now of anti-white propaganda and our own self-loathing made into a virtue.
Speaking of glossolalia, also consider echolalia and palilalia.
I'm not sure I'd describe it in such terms as you do here, but there certainly does seem to be a concerted effort to destabilise things going on.
I'm not convinced they want genocide - but a significant amount of racial tension and violence would be just lovely for them. The more trouble and worry and fear there is, the more easily the various totalitarian solutions they have in mind can be implemented.
Your cynicism has unfortunatly gotten the better of you. The Woke are not trying to dehumanize us. They are trying to lead us on the right Left path. They are True Believers. Eventually their hysteria will dissipate and it will be understood that they should have worked on saving themselves rather than the planet and the rest of us normal people.
My liberal friends have learned to never use woke phrases around me. They now know that my safe space is saying ‘Fuck you and the horse you rode in on’ if they use one of these phrases.
"a bunch of French perverts, who liked to abuse kids, and who decided that the current 'power' structures didn’t allow them to properly pursue their vile ‘hobby’.
OK - that may be something of an exaggeration, but one cannot definitively rule out their perversion as being at least one motivating factor behind their philosophy. ..."
😂 And "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!" 😉🙂
Though I can sympathize for many reasons. But you hit the nail resoundingly on the head many times. Apropos of "racism = prejudice + power", you might remember the late and entirely unlamented "Atheism Plus" [AP] which is where I first saw that "equation" some ten years ago:
AP: "In social justice terms, marginalized groups cannot be guilty of -isms because they don't have the power to institutionalize their prejudices. We make this distinction for the sake of clarity and so that otherwise productive discussions do not degenerate into quibbling over definitions."
They have similar catechisms on safe spaces and privilege for your further edification if not amusement ...
As for "lived experiences", you might also have some interest in a rather brilliant essay at Quillette on the topic several years ago by US/UK lawyer/philosopher Elizabeth Finne, this bit in particular:
Finne: "The primacy of subjectivity is by no means limited to politics. It now permeates the framework through which we have traditionally mediated our competing narratives. Journalism, academia, science, and law are all affected. In short, any institution that exists to accommodate competing perspectives is being undermined by a new paradigm that privileges the subjective ‘lived experience.’ And, in the process, the meta-values which have traditionally enabled us to transcend our differing subjective experiences suffer. Foundational principles such as 'audi alteram partem' (listen to the other side), the presumption of innocence, proportionality, empiricism, and even the rule of law now must bow before the sovereignty of the subjective.
"tyranny of the subjective", indeed. Far too many pull entirely unevidenced and quite subjective musings out of their nether regions, throw them imperiously on the table, and then clearly expect them to be taken as gospel truth. "Stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum, and said, 'what a good boy am I!' " 🙄
However ...🙂 , I do have something of a bone to pick with you on this:
RR: "This is the practice of socially conditioning your child to believe that there’s some feeling known as 'gender' which may not correspond to the biological bits and pieces they were born with."
While I will readily argue that "gender affirming care" -- a rather odious euphemism which should always be in quotes given the odious consequences it entails -- has to qualify as THE medical scandal and crime of the century -- "Dr." Mengele does the Tuskegee syphilis study -- I kinda think you're barking up the wrong tree, or at least starting off on the wrong foot. More particularly, you seem to be of the view that "sex" and "gender" are synonymous, but many more or less rational proponents of "gender" itself DEFINE it as being essentially synonymous with sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types. Of course they "may not correspond" -- they're entirely different kettles of fish: reproductive abilities versus personality traits that may be more common in one sex but are not unique to it or definitive.
Fairly illuminating analogy which underlines that rather profound dichotomy from the late US Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
But for something that may warm the cockles of your heart, hearkening back to your recent post on correlation, see this joint probability distribution between sex and agreeableness -- arguably, one dimension on the multi-dimensional gender spectrum -- which underlines the imperfect correlation between sex (gonads, baby) and gender (personalities, psychology):
By that graph, females are, on average, more agreeable than men -- about 4.1 versus 3.8 respectively. But some females are atypical, they have agreeableness factors more typical of males. One might say that IF agreeableness is one dimension of a multi-dimensional gender spectrum THEN those atypical females with agreeableness measures substantially below 3.8 have a masculine gender (agreeableness). Q.E.D. 🙂
I kinda think that the whole concept of "gender" is largely an incoherent, unscientific if not antiscientific steaming pile of toxic and mephitic claptrap. Being charitable. But I think there's also a nugget or two of solid fact and credible theory -- sexually dimorphic personality and behavioural traits -- that provide a useful avenue into, and method of resolving the transgender clusterfuck -- and quite possibly unhorsing a bunch of the social justice warriors who are part and parcel of it.
Bit concerned that all those more or less reasonably throwing stones at "gender" and "gender identity" are also throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Thanks for the detailed reply - and for the links. Much appreciated.
As for the whole "gender" thing - it's a mishmash of mendacious meanderings almost entirely devoid of meaning. I don't think there's anything I've seen when using the term "gender" that can't better be described with some form of words like "sex-based roles or expectations".
As I've noted before - the usual 'definitions' of the term gender are wholly dependent on the sex binary - and these 'definitions' become even more meaningless (if that is, in fact, possible) as a way to understand any 'gender' other than male or female.
I pretty much reject the concept of gender - it's more Hogwarts than anything else. Cast your expecto gendronum spell and your shining 'true' gender self will be revealed.
De nada -- going to take a full-court press to turn the transloonie tide .... 🙂
But "ALMOST entirely devoid of meaning" is the crux of the matter. While I can sympathize with your "better described ... with words like 'sex-based roles or expectations' ", it seems there are more than a few "problematic" aspects to it.
Most saliently, some rather extensive and quite thorough evidence that there ARE rather many sexually dimorphic personality traits which typically come in under the heading of "gender". Fairly nice joint probability distribution illustrating that fact is to be found in this oldish article at 4th Wave Now by an endocrinologist, a biologist, and a journalist:
4thWN: "In fact, due to the significant overlap of personality traits between males and females, the personality traits of some females will be more 'masculine' than those exhibited by some, or even most males, and vice versa."
"gender" seems to be a useful way of dealing with that dimorphism. Seems that many of the "gender dysphoric" are "thinking" -- or have been tricked into thinking -- that because they exhibit traits more typical of the other sex that that justifies concluding they're "born in the wrong body". And all of the odious consequences that follows therefrom.
The wider problem -- that has probably metastasized from that one -- is that "gender ideology" and various gender ideologues have buried themselves like ticks into the body politic -- politics, education, even science. Showing that the concept is, at best, just a synonym for those sexually dimorphic personality traits seems the best way of cutting the worst of that lot off at the knees. And a way of forestalling any more butchery of defenseless, dysphoric, and autistic children.
But a project I've been trying to promote for some time -- Mission Impossible? Should you or any of your IMF operatives be captured ... 😉🙂
Literally™ an adverb used to emphasize the correctness of one's position in the face of opposition. Historically (during white times) meant adhering to fact or actual, now means figuratively.
Or in summation: all the terms you describe serve one and one function alone:
Dehumanisation of a race.
That is the first step in industrialised genocide (as opposed to "natural" such, as in Rwanda f.e.).
Witness South Africa, where millions of blacks chant "Kill the boer!" When will blacks, pakis, et c in Britain do the same? What will the response from the actualreal british people be?
Making excuses and bringing up historical factoids from the Empire-era would bemy bet, since the alternative is to accept the overt threat as real and promise, and act upon it.
Which is racist, when "white people" do it, and being racist is much worse than defending one's race, people, culture and nation against extermination. If you're white, of course. Or a christian indigenous people in MENA.
The goal is the extermination - the final solution - of all the european and european descended peoples, not necessarily by a grand plan by secret conspirators but as an inevitable consequence of almost a century now of anti-white propaganda and our own self-loathing made into a virtue.
Speaking of glossolalia, also consider echolalia and palilalia.
I'm not sure I'd describe it in such terms as you do here, but there certainly does seem to be a concerted effort to destabilise things going on.
I'm not convinced they want genocide - but a significant amount of racial tension and violence would be just lovely for them. The more trouble and worry and fear there is, the more easily the various totalitarian solutions they have in mind can be implemented.
Rikard
Your cynicism has unfortunatly gotten the better of you. The Woke are not trying to dehumanize us. They are trying to lead us on the right Left path. They are True Believers. Eventually their hysteria will dissipate and it will be understood that they should have worked on saving themselves rather than the planet and the rest of us normal people.
My liberal friends have learned to never use woke phrases around me. They now know that my safe space is saying ‘Fuck you and the horse you rode in on’ if they use one of these phrases.
When I started down the list, I could not think of more than a half dozen items. Wow. Another case of "no matter how cynical I am, it isn't enough."
There are lots more terms I could have included. Lots more 🤣
it’s an Old Boy’s Club with balls....of solid gold, but with prostate cancer. (Wrote prostrate cancer first!)
"a bunch of French perverts, who liked to abuse kids, and who decided that the current 'power' structures didn’t allow them to properly pursue their vile ‘hobby’.
OK - that may be something of an exaggeration, but one cannot definitively rule out their perversion as being at least one motivating factor behind their philosophy. ..."
😂 And "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!" 😉🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy4zULKFDU
Though I can sympathize for many reasons. But you hit the nail resoundingly on the head many times. Apropos of "racism = prejudice + power", you might remember the late and entirely unlamented "Atheism Plus" [AP] which is where I first saw that "equation" some ten years ago:
AP: "In social justice terms, marginalized groups cannot be guilty of -isms because they don't have the power to institutionalize their prejudices. We make this distinction for the sake of clarity and so that otherwise productive discussions do not degenerate into quibbling over definitions."
https://web.archive.org/web/20130525005812/http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2105
They have similar catechisms on safe spaces and privilege for your further edification if not amusement ...
As for "lived experiences", you might also have some interest in a rather brilliant essay at Quillette on the topic several years ago by US/UK lawyer/philosopher Elizabeth Finne, this bit in particular:
Finne: "The primacy of subjectivity is by no means limited to politics. It now permeates the framework through which we have traditionally mediated our competing narratives. Journalism, academia, science, and law are all affected. In short, any institution that exists to accommodate competing perspectives is being undermined by a new paradigm that privileges the subjective ‘lived experience.’ And, in the process, the meta-values which have traditionally enabled us to transcend our differing subjective experiences suffer. Foundational principles such as 'audi alteram partem' (listen to the other side), the presumption of innocence, proportionality, empiricism, and even the rule of law now must bow before the sovereignty of the subjective.
https://archive.ph/3sdwg
https://quillette.com/2018/03/19/the-tyranny-of-the-subjective/
"tyranny of the subjective", indeed. Far too many pull entirely unevidenced and quite subjective musings out of their nether regions, throw them imperiously on the table, and then clearly expect them to be taken as gospel truth. "Stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum, and said, 'what a good boy am I!' " 🙄
However ...🙂 , I do have something of a bone to pick with you on this:
RR: "This is the practice of socially conditioning your child to believe that there’s some feeling known as 'gender' which may not correspond to the biological bits and pieces they were born with."
While I will readily argue that "gender affirming care" -- a rather odious euphemism which should always be in quotes given the odious consequences it entails -- has to qualify as THE medical scandal and crime of the century -- "Dr." Mengele does the Tuskegee syphilis study -- I kinda think you're barking up the wrong tree, or at least starting off on the wrong foot. More particularly, you seem to be of the view that "sex" and "gender" are synonymous, but many more or less rational proponents of "gender" itself DEFINE it as being essentially synonymous with sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types. Of course they "may not correspond" -- they're entirely different kettles of fish: reproductive abilities versus personality traits that may be more common in one sex but are not unique to it or definitive.
Fairly illuminating analogy which underlines that rather profound dichotomy from the late US Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
But for something that may warm the cockles of your heart, hearkening back to your recent post on correlation, see this joint probability distribution between sex and agreeableness -- arguably, one dimension on the multi-dimensional gender spectrum -- which underlines the imperfect correlation between sex (gonads, baby) and gender (personalities, psychology):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
By that graph, females are, on average, more agreeable than men -- about 4.1 versus 3.8 respectively. But some females are atypical, they have agreeableness factors more typical of males. One might say that IF agreeableness is one dimension of a multi-dimensional gender spectrum THEN those atypical females with agreeableness measures substantially below 3.8 have a masculine gender (agreeableness). Q.E.D. 🙂
I kinda think that the whole concept of "gender" is largely an incoherent, unscientific if not antiscientific steaming pile of toxic and mephitic claptrap. Being charitable. But I think there's also a nugget or two of solid fact and credible theory -- sexually dimorphic personality and behavioural traits -- that provide a useful avenue into, and method of resolving the transgender clusterfuck -- and quite possibly unhorsing a bunch of the social justice warriors who are part and parcel of it.
Bit concerned that all those more or less reasonably throwing stones at "gender" and "gender identity" are also throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Thanks for the detailed reply - and for the links. Much appreciated.
As for the whole "gender" thing - it's a mishmash of mendacious meanderings almost entirely devoid of meaning. I don't think there's anything I've seen when using the term "gender" that can't better be described with some form of words like "sex-based roles or expectations".
As I've noted before - the usual 'definitions' of the term gender are wholly dependent on the sex binary - and these 'definitions' become even more meaningless (if that is, in fact, possible) as a way to understand any 'gender' other than male or female.
I pretty much reject the concept of gender - it's more Hogwarts than anything else. Cast your expecto gendronum spell and your shining 'true' gender self will be revealed.
De nada -- going to take a full-court press to turn the transloonie tide .... 🙂
But "ALMOST entirely devoid of meaning" is the crux of the matter. While I can sympathize with your "better described ... with words like 'sex-based roles or expectations' ", it seems there are more than a few "problematic" aspects to it.
Most saliently, some rather extensive and quite thorough evidence that there ARE rather many sexually dimorphic personality traits which typically come in under the heading of "gender". Fairly nice joint probability distribution illustrating that fact is to be found in this oldish article at 4th Wave Now by an endocrinologist, a biologist, and a journalist:
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
4thWN: "In fact, due to the significant overlap of personality traits between males and females, the personality traits of some females will be more 'masculine' than those exhibited by some, or even most males, and vice versa."
"gender" seems to be a useful way of dealing with that dimorphism. Seems that many of the "gender dysphoric" are "thinking" -- or have been tricked into thinking -- that because they exhibit traits more typical of the other sex that that justifies concluding they're "born in the wrong body". And all of the odious consequences that follows therefrom.
The wider problem -- that has probably metastasized from that one -- is that "gender ideology" and various gender ideologues have buried themselves like ticks into the body politic -- politics, education, even science. Showing that the concept is, at best, just a synonym for those sexually dimorphic personality traits seems the best way of cutting the worst of that lot off at the knees. And a way of forestalling any more butchery of defenseless, dysphoric, and autistic children.
But a project I've been trying to promote for some time -- Mission Impossible? Should you or any of your IMF operatives be captured ... 😉🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission:_Impossible_(film)
Literally™ an adverb used to emphasize the correctness of one's position in the face of opposition. Historically (during white times) meant adhering to fact or actual, now means figuratively.