It seems the LGBTQWERTY people have won another victory, although we all know that, in practice, it’s all about the TQWERTY people these days. Spare a thought for the B’s who barely ever get a mention. Poor souls.
The hapless B’s are just not oppressed or marginalized enough to warrant much air time.
The ex-kidnapper and ex-torturer Alan Baker (now Sarah Jane Baker), who was given a 30-year sentence for his crimes, and who now belongs to the TQWERTY group, was recently seen being true to his stereotype by encouraging a crowd in the following way
“If you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face”
Initially, the police saw nothing wrong with this. After all, it’s not as bad as calling someone a muppet - something the police in the UK actually have arrested someone for. But after some pressure from the Home Secretary, they caved in and reluctantly tried to get this shining example of compassion and tolerance convicted of the crime of inciting violence1.
And, because the TQWERTY group are so oppressed and marginalized he (now “she”, allegedly) was given a harsh sentence let off scot-free.
Recall that I’ve talked about counterfactual reasoning before - it’s that thing where, instead of what actually happened, you try to reason about what would have happened given a different set of circumstances.
How about thinking about what might have happened in court had someone been arrested for uttering the phrase
“If you see a Tranny, punch them in the fucking face”
We’ll never know, and I doubt that should anyone actually say this they will be able to use this Baker verdict as a precedent, but I think we can all do the very simple math here, can’t we?
In other cases we do have evidence of how different standards are applied. If you happen to be a Democrat who calls an election result “stolen” then you’re fighting for democracy; if you happen to be called Donald you’re a threat to democracy if you call an election stolen.
And what about the exchange between Bill Maher and the musician John Mellencamp in which the following claim was made by JM?
the “Pink Houses” singer-songwriter claimed only 1% or 2% of black people living in America today have better lives than slaves
It would be funny if this wasn’t indicative of the grasp on reality that so many of today’s “progressive” fruit-loops seem to have.
We’ve seen it before; my go-to example of how a lot of people seem to believe that the sex/gender binary was “created” by white colonialists sometime in 18th or 19th century to oppress those with a different level of skin pigmentation. Here’s just one example
I can just imagine those white male scientists having a meeting2, although probably not in white coats because they weren’t in vogue at the time. Fortunately, minutes from the meeting still exist
Yes, Lord Bigot-Smythe, humans are identical in every respect, but the question before us is how to invent some difference so that we can oppress black people? Perhaps we should just create 2 classes and call the favoured class men, and the inferior class women? But I’ll be damned deuced how we’re going to be able to tell them apart.
Even Hollywood can tell the difference. I’ve been very reliably informed that they’re remaking Die Hard. It’s going to be called Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Harder starring Fiona Badass as Jane McChilblain. It happens during Eid when a group of non-binary people are prevented from accessing their safe space by some really nasty administrators.
As much as I love the original Die Hard, I’m also kind of glad that Jane Austen was able to write what she did when she did. The action in Pride and Prejudice doesn’t take place in the Nakatomi building, and nor does Darcy ever utter the phrase3 “Yippee-Ki-Yay Motherfucker”.
Even Jane knew, before those scientists “invented” it all, that there were some rather important differences between men and women.
If you scour the historical record you’ll find thousands of references to pangender asexual non-binary transmasculine demigirls and the like. There was a concerted program in the 19th century to remove all these references in order to be able to oppress people better. But they didn’t manage to erase them all. The authors of the past that we know about, talking about only men and women, represent just a tiny, tiny fraction of the actual literary output before the 19th century curtain fell on the rainbow people4.
I know that throughout history people have believed some odd things. People can walk on water or travel to Jerusalem on a flying donkey being two such things people manage to convince themselves of.
But you’d think we’d have progressed a bit by now - especially after the work of all those “white male scientists” who, somehow, have managed to have an extraordinary influence on culture by imposing sex binaries on us all, to name just one example.
It seems not. Our grasp on reality seems even more tenuous, if anything. It’s like we’re punch drunk and just reeling around trying to hold on to any old shit to keep ourselves upright.
We have the continual claim of oppression and marginalization of a group that are supported by every single institution, that get inordinately celebrated at every opportunity, that governments are bowing to and even changing our entire language to accommodate what is a very tiny minority of individuals. If that’s oppression and marginalization, I’ll have some of that, please.
We have people claiming that 98% of black people were better off as slaves than they are now.
How much more ridiculous is this all going to get?
I think the actual crime is something like “encouraging the commission of an offence”
Which raises the curious question of how, if the sex-binary didn’t exist, do we know they were male?
The remake, DIE Harder, is going to feature this phrase adapted for modern times : Yippee-Ki-Yay Birthingpersonfucker
I really shouldn’t have to point this out, but just in case there is someone reading this who has a woke-equivalent reading comprehension level, this entire paragraph is sarcasm and parody. I oscillate between the profound and the profane, the sublime and the ridiculous, and trust that most of you can spot the difference.
What the fudge is "black people" anyway?
In Africa, there are no "black people". There's a heck of a lot of zulus, tutsi, hutu, boer, arabs, masaj, punt, and so on but no "black people".
(And you wouldn't believe the hatred and disgust many of said africans feel for black americans. See, belonging to a people, a tribe or clan and a family is very important, and black americans? They're just citizens of a corporate state.)
Here's a little exercise my wife subjected her feminist-fill-in-the-labels-colleagues to, 25 years ago:
Count the number of jewish, black american, and gypsy "bad guys" in Hollywood movies and ocmpare to the number of white "bad guys".
And there was much screeching, reet-ing and wringing of hands.
Mellencamp’s assertion reminded me of the beliefs of another John— for John Calhoun famously asserted, “But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding states is an evil: far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both…I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually…”
Perhaps the artist formerly known as Cougar meant to argue about how terrible things are now for black people, but to me it sounded like he was saying something a lot of pro slavery advocates once believed: enslaved people were beneficiaries of the institution and getting rid of slavery was dangerous insofar as it would remove enslaved people from the oversight and care it guaranteed.
Antiracism is racism, so it’s no surprise to me that you end up in the same place you’re supposedly running from. Likewise— a lot of feminism has been masculinism— seeking to make women more influential by putting them in traditionally male roles and promoting traditionally masculine modes of societal power and influence. I’m all for women’s rights but haven’t feminists been yelling at men to sit down and shut up and (sometimes even) play pretend that women and men are pretty much the same longer than the anti racists have been trying to silence their critics? Nobody deserves a punch in the face, but what exactly do we think we are doing when we “allow” women to serve combat roles in the military? Whether we like it or not, with certain rights also come the removal of protections. Good in the case of freeing people from the bondage of slavery, but much more complicated (I think) in removing the traditional idea that women— due to our innate biology— deserve special protections in society.