I think here, "Internecine, in that both advocacies represent traditionally victimized groups, and should thus consider each other allies," "marginalized" might be more accurate than "victimized." Other than that, it is an excellent article.
In regard to some of what you stated here, I think you might find interest in the following 9 minute video. This professor does a rather excellent job of making his points:
I'd be interested in hearing some elaboration on your thoughts of "marginalized" vs "victimized," with the notion that, had I written it today, I'd very likely have used "marginalized."
And, with the notion that it's a blog rather than a legal document.
I realize this is a blog, not a legal doc - I'm just particular about word choices (though I probably could have myself worded my comment in a better manner). And in fairness, I was looking at it as if it was written today, not four years ago. That said, not sure how "victimized" women were four years ago. I guess I get hung up on the word "victim" because of how prevalent the "victim mentality" has become in society (you'll get that if you read my latest piece). Without context, the word "victimized" doesn't carry much meaning. In what way are these people "victims"? Is someone out killing women because they're women? Beating up trannies because they're trannies? Etc. Does any of that happen? Sure. Any more regularly than against anyone else for other reasons? Maybe, maybe not. It seems in the past couple of years, alleged victimization has been manufactured more often than not because there is not enough actual victimization to meet the narrative demand for it.
Unfortunately, I'm a bit short on time for the next few days (was thankful to find time to read your piece this morning and be able to respond even briefly), but hopefully this helps clarify.
Understood and agreed. Not sure the "victim" label works nowadays, from a "pervasiveness" angle. "Historically victimized," yes, and with gays it's more recent than with women.
Yes, there are instances of violence and "hate crime," but the latter term has become so charged that I hesitate to use it at all any more. When racism has been turned into a one-way street, and a black gangbanger beating up an old white lady while hurling epithets doesn't count as a "hate crime," then the term becomes useless.
One line to note in the clip - toward the end. "Queer theory... has nothing to do with homosexuality." See: piggybacking.
This goes to something I've recently written about - that the Woke are playing numbers games, that they're accreting disparate identity groups into monolithic blocs for "strength in numbers." Really - and I just saw a Jim Jeffries comedy bit about this yesterday by chance - what do gays and transgenders have in common? Why are they under one banner?
I actually hate the phrase "hate crime" itself, but that is an issue for another time.
Agree also on there being a difference between homosexuality and queer theory. Part of the reason I liked that video - he was sure to make that distinction.
Yes, there are people who want to piggy back pedophilia onto various acceptance movements, but that doesn't mean that accepting the rights of gay and lesbian adults to engage in consensual behavior translates to condoning pedophilia. Minors cannot, by definition, consent. The pedos can try to coat-tail all they want, but all we have to do is say "no fucking way."
It's the bullying and suppression of dissent they're after, and we simply shouldn't let them get away with it.
Believe me, gays really want nothing to do with the pedos. Just as many trans persons aren't happy with the activists' excesses.
Agreed, but there's always been a slippery slope associated with sexual deviancy. No one would care about most of this (aside from the pedophilia) if they would keep it behind closed doors where it belongs. I, for one, am not in the least interested what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom - it's none of my business - until they shove it in my face and make it my businesss. And this is the WHOLE point of "pride month" - shoving it in our faces. But I digress, and as I stated in my other comment, time is limited.
I have seen many gays speak out against pedophilia, and even about the trans-tyranny. This latter is what makes your article so poignant. You and I have discussed before the idea that, if someone wants to live a life in denial of reality, they are certainly at liberty to do so; however, any attempt to force you or I unwillingly to go along in denying reality is tyranny.
I wish there were deep thinkers like you in the trans community. It benefits their cause not to be. My concern about piggy backing pedophilia is that transgender laws passed could provide a precedent for pedophiles in some form.
I'm sure there are people who are either trans themselves or active in the trans acceptance movement that understand their cause is being harmed by excesses. Caitlyn Jenner is certainly not down with the currently-dominant viewpoints, and I believe many are uncomfortable with the athletic stuff as well.
Precedents only have real weight in courts, and writing new laws is not the purview of courts. Sure, the pedo advocates can claim whatever they want, but that's going to happen no matter what, and we should not penalize other individuals because some sickos try to hop onto their wagons. Would it be proper to denounce Christians because of the Westboro Baptist jackasses?
“It cannot be stressed enough that the trans movement’s goals have changed from acceptance to a combination of coercion and supremacy. The rights of non-trans persons, where the intersect with those of trans persons, are to be subordinate. This flies in the face of every tenet of liberty and equality at the foundation of our society. We each have the same rights, and those rights are bounded by the rights of each of our fellow members of society. When a group demands that its rights be elevated above the rights of others, it breaks with our foundational principles. Nothing good can come of that.
And, when that group’s membership is wholly based on self-declaration, it is certain to foster resentment, abuse, and resentment born of abuse.”
I think here, "Internecine, in that both advocacies represent traditionally victimized groups, and should thus consider each other allies," "marginalized" might be more accurate than "victimized." Other than that, it is an excellent article.
In regard to some of what you stated here, I think you might find interest in the following 9 minute video. This professor does a rather excellent job of making his points:
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1670109453473939456
I'd be interested in hearing some elaboration on your thoughts of "marginalized" vs "victimized," with the notion that, had I written it today, I'd very likely have used "marginalized."
And, with the notion that it's a blog rather than a legal document.
Thanks - will watch vid.
I realize this is a blog, not a legal doc - I'm just particular about word choices (though I probably could have myself worded my comment in a better manner). And in fairness, I was looking at it as if it was written today, not four years ago. That said, not sure how "victimized" women were four years ago. I guess I get hung up on the word "victim" because of how prevalent the "victim mentality" has become in society (you'll get that if you read my latest piece). Without context, the word "victimized" doesn't carry much meaning. In what way are these people "victims"? Is someone out killing women because they're women? Beating up trannies because they're trannies? Etc. Does any of that happen? Sure. Any more regularly than against anyone else for other reasons? Maybe, maybe not. It seems in the past couple of years, alleged victimization has been manufactured more often than not because there is not enough actual victimization to meet the narrative demand for it.
Unfortunately, I'm a bit short on time for the next few days (was thankful to find time to read your piece this morning and be able to respond even briefly), but hopefully this helps clarify.
Understood and agreed. Not sure the "victim" label works nowadays, from a "pervasiveness" angle. "Historically victimized," yes, and with gays it's more recent than with women.
Yes, there are instances of violence and "hate crime," but the latter term has become so charged that I hesitate to use it at all any more. When racism has been turned into a one-way street, and a black gangbanger beating up an old white lady while hurling epithets doesn't count as a "hate crime," then the term becomes useless.
One line to note in the clip - toward the end. "Queer theory... has nothing to do with homosexuality." See: piggybacking.
This goes to something I've recently written about - that the Woke are playing numbers games, that they're accreting disparate identity groups into monolithic blocs for "strength in numbers." Really - and I just saw a Jim Jeffries comedy bit about this yesterday by chance - what do gays and transgenders have in common? Why are they under one banner?
I actually hate the phrase "hate crime" itself, but that is an issue for another time.
Agree also on there being a difference between homosexuality and queer theory. Part of the reason I liked that video - he was sure to make that distinction.
Yes, there are people who want to piggy back pedophilia onto various acceptance movements, but that doesn't mean that accepting the rights of gay and lesbian adults to engage in consensual behavior translates to condoning pedophilia. Minors cannot, by definition, consent. The pedos can try to coat-tail all they want, but all we have to do is say "no fucking way."
It's the bullying and suppression of dissent they're after, and we simply shouldn't let them get away with it.
Believe me, gays really want nothing to do with the pedos. Just as many trans persons aren't happy with the activists' excesses.
Agreed, but there's always been a slippery slope associated with sexual deviancy. No one would care about most of this (aside from the pedophilia) if they would keep it behind closed doors where it belongs. I, for one, am not in the least interested what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom - it's none of my business - until they shove it in my face and make it my businesss. And this is the WHOLE point of "pride month" - shoving it in our faces. But I digress, and as I stated in my other comment, time is limited.
I have seen many gays speak out against pedophilia, and even about the trans-tyranny. This latter is what makes your article so poignant. You and I have discussed before the idea that, if someone wants to live a life in denial of reality, they are certainly at liberty to do so; however, any attempt to force you or I unwillingly to go along in denying reality is tyranny.
I wish there were deep thinkers like you in the trans community. It benefits their cause not to be. My concern about piggy backing pedophilia is that transgender laws passed could provide a precedent for pedophiles in some form.
I'm sure there are people who are either trans themselves or active in the trans acceptance movement that understand their cause is being harmed by excesses. Caitlyn Jenner is certainly not down with the currently-dominant viewpoints, and I believe many are uncomfortable with the athletic stuff as well.
Precedents only have real weight in courts, and writing new laws is not the purview of courts. Sure, the pedo advocates can claim whatever they want, but that's going to happen no matter what, and we should not penalize other individuals because some sickos try to hop onto their wagons. Would it be proper to denounce Christians because of the Westboro Baptist jackasses?
So. Much. This:
“It cannot be stressed enough that the trans movement’s goals have changed from acceptance to a combination of coercion and supremacy. The rights of non-trans persons, where the intersect with those of trans persons, are to be subordinate. This flies in the face of every tenet of liberty and equality at the foundation of our society. We each have the same rights, and those rights are bounded by the rights of each of our fellow members of society. When a group demands that its rights be elevated above the rights of others, it breaks with our foundational principles. Nothing good can come of that.
And, when that group’s membership is wholly based on self-declaration, it is certain to foster resentment, abuse, and resentment born of abuse.”