Assessing risk used to be something every child learned to do in everyday play and interactions. You know, before being young, active and a bit wild became a verboten part of childhood.
Boy 1: I want to climb that big tree.
Boy 2: I climbed it last month, fell out and broke my arm.
Boy 1: Hmm, I still want to climb that tree. Assesses risk and decides to climb, falls and breaks his arm. Lesson in risk taking learned.
A week later...
Girl 1: I want to climb that tree.
Boy 1: (with lovely blue casted arm) “Go for it”!
Assessing risk is a learned trait that todays children are being deprived of developing. Same as learning coping sills and critical thinking. We’ve devolved into a world of perpetual adolescence.
Today, you are instead met with either or both of these:
"We regret to inform you that me must deny you the use of your health insurance as your child injured him/her/other self by voluntarily climbing a non-standardised, non-regulation compliant climbing device"
And at school:
"No climbing the trees, trees aren't EU-standard approved climbing appliances for the recreation of children, and as such the school is liable for any damage suffered"
No, I'm not kidding. While I may misremember the exact wording, both are authentic statements made by officials.
So disheartening for todays children to be shielded and coddled out of some of the best experiences of childhood. Heck, being taken to the ER was a badge of honor!
I see kids on bikes with helmets, elbow pads, knee pads, and a horse trotting behind in case the bike gets a flat tire. On the horse is a pack containing climbing equipment, food for a week, a blow-up doll in case anyone grows into puberty suddenly, and 46 cans (aluminum, of course) of orange soda in case anyone gets tired.
Oh yes, and a blow-up raft in case it rains, and in case the rain causes a flood.
I could actually be persuaded by the argument-- and I think Rikard mentions this point in his response-- that there is something going on that is biological (caused by chemicals/drugs/hormones in food and water and mothers' bodies as they grow and nurse babies). Obviously, that's not all-- there's a reason 50% of the men in my neighborhood aren't jumping onto the Bruce Jenner bandwagon. But it is interesting to me that trans activists don't make the first argument, one that would not just gain them supporters and sympathy but also help. They seem to rage against anything that might suggest that being trans is not a natural, equally valid, historically present human state. (It's no accident that many of the supporters of this philosophy also have blue hair. Surely they are blue haired people born into the wrong body, and such individuals have always existed but only now have the capability of living their truth-- and let's forget the traditional methods of reproduction and passing down genes that we've always relied upon even exist. Soon we'll have the blue haired trans activists fighting against teaching evolution in schools.)
I think the issue would be worth looking into, if only to put it to bed if nothing is found. That too has value, knowing where the problem is not.
Pulling some numbers from the air, let's say the normal rate of chromosomal failure leading to intersex conditions upon birth is 1/100 000 per live birth and that this has been steady for the past several thousand years; we do know from history that hermaphridites as they were called always existed and were seen as everything from specially blessed and holy to perversions of nature, depending on when and where we look.
Now, given the sharp increase in chemicals of all kinds from the year 1800 (just to pick a year) combined with how urbanisation concentrates these chemicals in the endlessly reused watersystems of large cities, and how chemicals of some kinds affect our DNA/chromosomes leading to knock-on effects on the generational level - dosn't it stand to reason that this (highly difficult to investigate) hypothesis might explain the increasingly steep rise in several disorders which combines both strictly physical deformities as well as abnormalities of the brain?
If the chemical cocktail increases this general risk from 1/100 000 to 1/10 000, and that this effect is further enhanced when people who are carrying the markers for increased probability have children themsleves - well, sooner or later 50% having the neurological/physiological make-up of qualifying as "trans" even without the "gender is a just a hat"-stuff becomes a certainty, doesn't it?
I got the idea decades ago when looking at a christian sect in northern Norway, Sweden and Finalnd. They never were very numerous when they started in the early 19th century, and they only allowed marriage within the sect. When you start out with about 2 000 persons, and practice marrying first cousins.... well. Maybe the "assburgers"/transwhatever/woke hysteria has a chemical component: that a significant proportion has had their personal probability to jump that way increased so that they now are so many that they become an actual subset of the population?
The difference between then (the eternal Hitler) and now is that national socialism used actually existing groups with well-defined traits and characteristics as their enemy and scapegoats. Today, we instead use rather abstract terms that only really exist as empty concepts waiting to be filled via the process of shaming and name-calling.
So Trudelutt can campaign against "anti-vaxxxers" to his heart's content, since the group is 99% abstracted; it has one shared quality, questioning and criticising vaccines and -policies. Anyone can be an anti-vaxxxer, since it's Trudelutt and others like him who thanks to the media gatekeepers controls the communication-space and thus perception of reality (and outside physics and chemistry and so on, perception of reality is reality for all practical purposes).
It's the same with homophobe, islamophobe, racist, sexist, and so on. Meaningless empty words which all are used as synonyms to unclean, evil and heretic or apostate. But were we to use the real words - heretic describing someone pointing out that there's zero evidence for anthropogenic global warming/climate change theory - it would also become far too obvious, espeically for the one using the term, that it is all a question of belief and faith in authority, in the modern-day secular clergy.
By creating the group via the label, authority controls completely who fulfills the qualities for being put in the group, and this exists in a fashion similar to the double-helix: intertwined strands of ideas abridged by labels, splitting and rejoining and mutating into an ever-more effective form of mental manipulation (which none of us is above or beyond).
It is in all probability an inevitable consequence of the passivity, peace-ability, intovert culture, and removing challenges from life, since the end of WW2. Plus unknown amounts of chemicals being poured into the water table up until the 1990s. Add to that more than 50 years of putting estrogen into the water table too. Plus heavy metals, medications and vaccines not tested for interaction-processes. And so on - we don't know how what affects us on the population level, how different factors interact, nor do we have a baseline group born and grown to adulthood before all this to use as a control - virtually all those born before the 1930s are dead and gone.
So all we can do is forge on wards really, hoping that any light at the end of the tunnel is the sun and not an oncoming train.
That's the technical aspect of it. Being labeled as those abstract terms seems to invoke shame and fear in people, and that's what's being driven into society as well. A bunch of weak, non-specific self-identified people.
Me? I'm a child of God. I know who I am. I welcome the company of other self-aware people.
Those other people? Well, they seem to be confused, but I don't let their confusion dictate what my life is supposed to be.
And I don't give a rats butt about having these epithets thrown at me by vacuous people who can't even understand who they are, or who attempt to use those tactics. That's the sign of a weak mind, quite possibly conditioned, but allowing it to be conditioned and absent critical thinking skills.
Personally, I've had a REALLY hard time understanding how so many people have bought into the idea Turdeau spouts that being an "anti-vaxxer" makes you racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.
And if people need help with that, it's not even a vaccine. It's a bioweapon.
Now, work on learning who you are and not allowing other people to define it for you, right?
Geez, if more people just said "no" to all this nonsense, think how much better society would be.
I'm finding it hard to spot people in power who still try to say things like this when the populace has stood up to them. And it doesn't hurt to call them on such terms either.
After all, if they're held accountable for their words, then perhaps they'll choose their words more carefully.
Very true. "In the beginning there was the Word" isn't just a religious thing, it is also a universal truth secularly speaking, as nothing exists conceptually (or perhaps perceptually is better?) until we create it by naming it. Akin to but not quite Adam naming everything.
(Physically/physicality is of course a different kettle of fish - a rose is a rose is a rose and so on.)
I remember when you just had, just had to be wearing flare jeans to school, straight legs were so passe. I no longer wear flare jeans, and very few people do. Kids are soft and absorbant like sponges, remember how yoyo's became the thing? Marbles? Phases, induced by suggestion and wanting to fit in. Feel bad for the kids who cut body parts off just to fit in. They cannot see how we change through life, and how commitments should no be made too early. Hence 21. It's a useful litmus. I do see that the endocrine disruptors in most plastics have made us different, though, as well. The boys of today do not have the same chemicals and hormones that boys of yesteryear had, nor do the girls. But our desire to fit in seems as strong as ever.
Thank you for the mathy bit with communication channels. If I understand correctly, it's another way of describing what epidemiologist call the positive predictive value of a test.
It is quite amusing (to a mathematician, that is) to think about conditional probabilities because of Bayes' rule. If Ms = "male sent", Mr = "male received", Fs = "female sent", and Fr = "female received", then:
P( Ms | Fr ) = P( Fr | Ms ) * P( Ms ) / P( Fr )
We know that, all around the world, P( Fr ) is around 0.487 at birth. If it really was the case that P( Ms | Fr ) = 0.5 (and of course observation of such a rate is possible when the sample is small), we would have P( Fr | Ms ) * P( Ms ) = 0.5 * 0.487 = 0.2435, and one of P( Fr | Ms ) and P( Ms ) would have to be smaller than 0.4935 (square root of 0.2435), and both would have to be larger than 0.2435. In other words, if we observe many wrongly-received males (in a large population), there also has to be a considerable number of wrongly-received females.
If zere are many more vomen claiming to be trapped in men's bodies zan zere are men claiming to be trapped in women's bodies, or ze ozer vay round, somezing is vrong (but zat somezing is vrong, ve know anyway).
I am firmly of the opinion that "we" haven't done anything. This is being done TO us. I went to my search engine, DuckDuckGo (hell, no, I don't ever use Google), and I put in the search "List of tools used by the CIA to destabilize society, and I got NO LESS than NINE out of TEN articles before getting a prompt to see more articles saying something along the lines of "How the CIA used Feminism to Destabilize Society."
Boom.
Wanna be told what to think?
Wanna be told who the "enemy" is?
Wanna be told who is actually doing the destabilizing?
Then use your computer and understand that most information we get is PROPAGANDA.
In my opinion, "we" are not going crazy as a society. Nor are "we" having gender issues. Nor are "we" seeing a growing insanity in our children (although considering the past nearly three years, it does make some sense, in a sense!!!)... SO MANY issues we are seeing going on, gender issues, race issues, open border issues, AI issues, Mass Formation issues, and on and on and on...
ALL DELIBERATELY BROUGHT ABOUT, by maybe various entities, but surely LED BY the CIA...
Assessing risk used to be something every child learned to do in everyday play and interactions. You know, before being young, active and a bit wild became a verboten part of childhood.
Boy 1: I want to climb that big tree.
Boy 2: I climbed it last month, fell out and broke my arm.
Boy 1: Hmm, I still want to climb that tree. Assesses risk and decides to climb, falls and breaks his arm. Lesson in risk taking learned.
A week later...
Girl 1: I want to climb that tree.
Boy 1: (with lovely blue casted arm) “Go for it”!
Assessing risk is a learned trait that todays children are being deprived of developing. Same as learning coping sills and critical thinking. We’ve devolved into a world of perpetual adolescence.
Today, you are instead met with either or both of these:
"We regret to inform you that me must deny you the use of your health insurance as your child injured him/her/other self by voluntarily climbing a non-standardised, non-regulation compliant climbing device"
And at school:
"No climbing the trees, trees aren't EU-standard approved climbing appliances for the recreation of children, and as such the school is liable for any damage suffered"
No, I'm not kidding. While I may misremember the exact wording, both are authentic statements made by officials.
So disheartening for todays children to be shielded and coddled out of some of the best experiences of childhood. Heck, being taken to the ER was a badge of honor!
I see kids on bikes with helmets, elbow pads, knee pads, and a horse trotting behind in case the bike gets a flat tire. On the horse is a pack containing climbing equipment, food for a week, a blow-up doll in case anyone grows into puberty suddenly, and 46 cans (aluminum, of course) of orange soda in case anyone gets tired.
Oh yes, and a blow-up raft in case it rains, and in case the rain causes a flood.
“Identify” = Play pretend. You know, like five year olds do- put on Mommy’s dress, now you’re Mommy…
I could actually be persuaded by the argument-- and I think Rikard mentions this point in his response-- that there is something going on that is biological (caused by chemicals/drugs/hormones in food and water and mothers' bodies as they grow and nurse babies). Obviously, that's not all-- there's a reason 50% of the men in my neighborhood aren't jumping onto the Bruce Jenner bandwagon. But it is interesting to me that trans activists don't make the first argument, one that would not just gain them supporters and sympathy but also help. They seem to rage against anything that might suggest that being trans is not a natural, equally valid, historically present human state. (It's no accident that many of the supporters of this philosophy also have blue hair. Surely they are blue haired people born into the wrong body, and such individuals have always existed but only now have the capability of living their truth-- and let's forget the traditional methods of reproduction and passing down genes that we've always relied upon even exist. Soon we'll have the blue haired trans activists fighting against teaching evolution in schools.)
I think the issue would be worth looking into, if only to put it to bed if nothing is found. That too has value, knowing where the problem is not.
Pulling some numbers from the air, let's say the normal rate of chromosomal failure leading to intersex conditions upon birth is 1/100 000 per live birth and that this has been steady for the past several thousand years; we do know from history that hermaphridites as they were called always existed and were seen as everything from specially blessed and holy to perversions of nature, depending on when and where we look.
Now, given the sharp increase in chemicals of all kinds from the year 1800 (just to pick a year) combined with how urbanisation concentrates these chemicals in the endlessly reused watersystems of large cities, and how chemicals of some kinds affect our DNA/chromosomes leading to knock-on effects on the generational level - dosn't it stand to reason that this (highly difficult to investigate) hypothesis might explain the increasingly steep rise in several disorders which combines both strictly physical deformities as well as abnormalities of the brain?
If the chemical cocktail increases this general risk from 1/100 000 to 1/10 000, and that this effect is further enhanced when people who are carrying the markers for increased probability have children themsleves - well, sooner or later 50% having the neurological/physiological make-up of qualifying as "trans" even without the "gender is a just a hat"-stuff becomes a certainty, doesn't it?
I got the idea decades ago when looking at a christian sect in northern Norway, Sweden and Finalnd. They never were very numerous when they started in the early 19th century, and they only allowed marriage within the sect. When you start out with about 2 000 persons, and practice marrying first cousins.... well. Maybe the "assburgers"/transwhatever/woke hysteria has a chemical component: that a significant proportion has had their personal probability to jump that way increased so that they now are so many that they become an actual subset of the population?
The difference between then (the eternal Hitler) and now is that national socialism used actually existing groups with well-defined traits and characteristics as their enemy and scapegoats. Today, we instead use rather abstract terms that only really exist as empty concepts waiting to be filled via the process of shaming and name-calling.
So Trudelutt can campaign against "anti-vaxxxers" to his heart's content, since the group is 99% abstracted; it has one shared quality, questioning and criticising vaccines and -policies. Anyone can be an anti-vaxxxer, since it's Trudelutt and others like him who thanks to the media gatekeepers controls the communication-space and thus perception of reality (and outside physics and chemistry and so on, perception of reality is reality for all practical purposes).
It's the same with homophobe, islamophobe, racist, sexist, and so on. Meaningless empty words which all are used as synonyms to unclean, evil and heretic or apostate. But were we to use the real words - heretic describing someone pointing out that there's zero evidence for anthropogenic global warming/climate change theory - it would also become far too obvious, espeically for the one using the term, that it is all a question of belief and faith in authority, in the modern-day secular clergy.
By creating the group via the label, authority controls completely who fulfills the qualities for being put in the group, and this exists in a fashion similar to the double-helix: intertwined strands of ideas abridged by labels, splitting and rejoining and mutating into an ever-more effective form of mental manipulation (which none of us is above or beyond).
It is in all probability an inevitable consequence of the passivity, peace-ability, intovert culture, and removing challenges from life, since the end of WW2. Plus unknown amounts of chemicals being poured into the water table up until the 1990s. Add to that more than 50 years of putting estrogen into the water table too. Plus heavy metals, medications and vaccines not tested for interaction-processes. And so on - we don't know how what affects us on the population level, how different factors interact, nor do we have a baseline group born and grown to adulthood before all this to use as a control - virtually all those born before the 1930s are dead and gone.
So all we can do is forge on wards really, hoping that any light at the end of the tunnel is the sun and not an oncoming train.
That's the technical aspect of it. Being labeled as those abstract terms seems to invoke shame and fear in people, and that's what's being driven into society as well. A bunch of weak, non-specific self-identified people.
Me? I'm a child of God. I know who I am. I welcome the company of other self-aware people.
Those other people? Well, they seem to be confused, but I don't let their confusion dictate what my life is supposed to be.
And I don't give a rats butt about having these epithets thrown at me by vacuous people who can't even understand who they are, or who attempt to use those tactics. That's the sign of a weak mind, quite possibly conditioned, but allowing it to be conditioned and absent critical thinking skills.
Personally, I've had a REALLY hard time understanding how so many people have bought into the idea Turdeau spouts that being an "anti-vaxxer" makes you racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.
And if people need help with that, it's not even a vaccine. It's a bioweapon.
Now, work on learning who you are and not allowing other people to define it for you, right?
Geez, if more people just said "no" to all this nonsense, think how much better society would be.
Imagine the "Just Say No!" campaign today.
You'd get called a nazi or Putin or something.
I'm finding it hard to spot people in power who still try to say things like this when the populace has stood up to them. And it doesn't hurt to call them on such terms either.
After all, if they're held accountable for their words, then perhaps they'll choose their words more carefully.
Very true. "In the beginning there was the Word" isn't just a religious thing, it is also a universal truth secularly speaking, as nothing exists conceptually (or perhaps perceptually is better?) until we create it by naming it. Akin to but not quite Adam naming everything.
(Physically/physicality is of course a different kettle of fish - a rose is a rose is a rose and so on.)
I remember when you just had, just had to be wearing flare jeans to school, straight legs were so passe. I no longer wear flare jeans, and very few people do. Kids are soft and absorbant like sponges, remember how yoyo's became the thing? Marbles? Phases, induced by suggestion and wanting to fit in. Feel bad for the kids who cut body parts off just to fit in. They cannot see how we change through life, and how commitments should no be made too early. Hence 21. It's a useful litmus. I do see that the endocrine disruptors in most plastics have made us different, though, as well. The boys of today do not have the same chemicals and hormones that boys of yesteryear had, nor do the girls. But our desire to fit in seems as strong as ever.
I have to add this:
According to the Holy Boggle of Dog Almighty, there cannot be anything "bad" about Bacon.
Thank you for the mathy bit with communication channels. If I understand correctly, it's another way of describing what epidemiologist call the positive predictive value of a test.
It is quite amusing (to a mathematician, that is) to think about conditional probabilities because of Bayes' rule. If Ms = "male sent", Mr = "male received", Fs = "female sent", and Fr = "female received", then:
P( Ms | Fr ) = P( Fr | Ms ) * P( Ms ) / P( Fr )
We know that, all around the world, P( Fr ) is around 0.487 at birth. If it really was the case that P( Ms | Fr ) = 0.5 (and of course observation of such a rate is possible when the sample is small), we would have P( Fr | Ms ) * P( Ms ) = 0.5 * 0.487 = 0.2435, and one of P( Fr | Ms ) and P( Ms ) would have to be smaller than 0.4935 (square root of 0.2435), and both would have to be larger than 0.2435. In other words, if we observe many wrongly-received males (in a large population), there also has to be a considerable number of wrongly-received females.
Okay, this is why I don't invite mathematicians to parties.
Just kidding, but... could you translate that into plain English? I don't mind if it has any particular accent. ^_^
If zere are many more vomen claiming to be trapped in men's bodies zan zere are men claiming to be trapped in women's bodies, or ze ozer vay round, somezing is vrong (but zat somezing is vrong, ve know anyway).
Fangks. ;)
Hey, Rigger, here's something you'll probably appreciate... lol
https://www.bobmoran.co.uk/other-work/tranzilla-original-artwork
I identify as a world-famous bestselling author. Where are the royalties I'm entitled to?
I am firmly of the opinion that "we" haven't done anything. This is being done TO us. I went to my search engine, DuckDuckGo (hell, no, I don't ever use Google), and I put in the search "List of tools used by the CIA to destabilize society, and I got NO LESS than NINE out of TEN articles before getting a prompt to see more articles saying something along the lines of "How the CIA used Feminism to Destabilize Society."
Boom.
Wanna be told what to think?
Wanna be told who the "enemy" is?
Wanna be told who is actually doing the destabilizing?
Then use your computer and understand that most information we get is PROPAGANDA.
In my opinion, "we" are not going crazy as a society. Nor are "we" having gender issues. Nor are "we" seeing a growing insanity in our children (although considering the past nearly three years, it does make some sense, in a sense!!!)... SO MANY issues we are seeing going on, gender issues, race issues, open border issues, AI issues, Mass Formation issues, and on and on and on...
ALL DELIBERATELY BROUGHT ABOUT, by maybe various entities, but surely LED BY the CIA...
To distract,
Confuse,
Infuriate,
Badger and Irritate
Cause self doubt and fear
Fuck us up emotionally, generally speaking
Peace.