Someone deleted my blog post... · 3:43am Oct 23rd, 2018
Apparently, because someone couldn't believe blocking and insulting me didn't work on my will of steel (while their own eggshell egos smashed into ruin against mine), they've resorted to the same sort of shadow-deletion as Fakebook and Twatter.
A cowardly move if ever I saw one.
But, hardly unexpected. In fact, it was completely predictable. I'm simply miffed that is was SO predictable. They've only proven me correct in every anti-SJW point I've made. It's become so boring, I'm not even as annoyed as I thought I would be. Mostly, disappointed that they are as timid and pathetic as I expected.
Love and tolerance? Hmph, I did try to tell people it was as much of a crock as that absurd 'hope and change' drivel.
Humans will always be human, no matter what costumes they wear.
Wait, you can delete other peoples blog posts? News to me.
Dude, it’s FiMfic. What’d you expect?
4956821 Someone certainly has done so.
After my last post on it declared my intent to crush the NPC brigades unapologetically, the whole blog was gone the next day.
This, naturally, has only inflamed my resolve even further to SUPERNOVA LEVELS!! Now, I shall root out every last one of them from the entire face of the planet!
The first step will naturally involve more of 4chan's devastatingly powerful weaponized autism.
4956947
4956895
I shall now offend all of tumblr in one fell swoop:
Steven Universe is okay. Not bad, but not great either, and the fact you idiots on tumblr get all het up over it isn't because of the show itself but because it tickles your ill informed political taint.
4956954
I liked it ok in the first couple seasons. After they cranked the Leftism up to 11, they lost me.
4956964
IT'S NOT MANLY ENOUGH!
Cry havoc and let slip the frogs of war. Make them see nothing but the green of our forces as we redpill everyone.
PRAISE KEK!
It'd probably still help to be polite. There's more outrage if you're polite, if you're an edge case of being too offensive or not too offensive since centrists will take your side. If you're rude and also politically incorrect, then you'll get a lot less sympathy when your stuff is removed. And again, being rude doesn't accomplish anything besides "triggering the libs" which really shouldn't be a goal, as funny as it can be,
4957026
i.imgur.com/yxzU15V.jpg
4957027
Look man... you strike me as a nice person, but like I said, we've come to point where that simply won't get us anywhere. I can appreciate what you're trying to say, and can appreciate the Jordan Peterson approach, but even he admits theres a limit to politeness, and its been reached thrice over and thrice over that. It has been nothing over the past thirty years, at least, but an endless litany of insults, slights, dismissals, and flat out assaults, physical and emotional, and now the shoes on the other foot, and the right, in so far as that goes, aren't even being all that bad, and they are seriously considering, for the first time in english common law, demand that people say certain things, and you'd like people be polite.
If it helps, think of it as tough love.
4957027
I agree with this approach myself. In fact I find the best way to troll lefties is to just ask them questions via the Socratic method until their whole ideology collapses in on itself (Since their views have no support in reality). Then once they snap and get rude I'm free to play the 'victim' and anyone who overhears the outburst is swayed to my side.
Just because we're superior to them is no reason to be rude. That said when they start performing outright character assassination and personal attacks, then yes, it is time for righteous indignation.
Look at it this way, if we're trolling them we're not rioting in the streets....y'know like they are.
4957100
That tough love won't work when the left is approximately as powerful as the right. The right-left relationship is not a father-son relationship where tough love can work, it's more of a relationship between two equal coworkers who don't like each other much but have to work together to get shit done. If one coworker starts being abusive and rude, being abusive and rude back isn't going to fix anything. You have to try to find a way to get the other coworker to stop being rude and abusive. The goal is not to try to get rid of the other coworker or beat the other coworker, that's impossible to do on any long-term time scale. The goal is to get shit done and done right, which certainly is possible albeit not easy.
Also keep in mind that your right-wing communities only showcase the worst examples of the left that are not representative, just like how left-wing communities only showcase the worst examples of the right that are not representative. The left, as a whole, is not as bad as your impression of it, and keep in mind that what most of the left imagines the right to be is also inaccurate.
4957310
I'm pretty lefty myself on social issues, can you try out your socratic method on me? I think most of the standard progressive beliefs of the left are correct, just that they also overly aggressive to people who disagree so I don't like participating in left communities much.
4957430
Well I'm a Centrist myself so I tend to not have strong feelings on matters of nuance. In fact the only reason I've thrown in with the 'Right' against Lefties is more because I find PC culture distastefully intolerant of other opinions.
As for Socratic questioning it's usually something that happens when I'm just trying to understand the other person's viewpoint and has a frequent tendency to 'gotcha' the fact most SJWs haven't thought their own beliefs through.
Also I'm not even sure what 'standard progressive beliefs are supposed to be anymore. The SJWs and extremists have run so far out I don't even know what they're standing for anymore, just that they are offended and that I'm apparently a bad person for not being offended with them.
4957477
I'm very similar, I just align a bit more with left because I think stuff like >2 genders and non-insignificant amounts of discrimination still exist and are decently important issues.
4957483
And here's where we drift a bit already. I believe there are only as many genders as society is willing to accept as true, and there's no practical reason for that amount to exceed the biological sexes of our species. Even if by some oddity a person does possess 'nonstandard equipment' there will only be as many 'genders' are society is willing to accept. And frankly most people struggle just understanding how to interact with the opposite sex, adding 'new genders' into that is asking for problems in the social dynamic.
As for discrimination, I believe it's an issue as well, just not as much of one as people perceive it to be. But i'd rather tackle one issue at a time and that's a whole different discussion.
4957430
Dude... at this point... we literally have to say nothing. See below video to know what I'm talking about
4957492
4956895
4956947
figured you all would want to see this too.
4957492
The problem boils down to I think some people are much more comfortable identifying as and being referred to as a third gender, and other people are much more comfortable not identifying people and referring to people as a third gender. So the question becomes which group is more important to please. I think democracy is a good way to solve that, whichever group wins the legislative battle will have won because they're more important.
4956954 I agree. It's a show that has a central story that's serviceable and a world that's rather unique, but the telling is rather spastic and uneven, with sudden swings in pacing and uneven characterization
4957483 Prove SCIENTIFICALLY that more than two genders exist.
There is plenty of delusion, but no facts to back up any of it. Biology utterly rejects the notion of mammals with more than two genders, indeed in vertebrates overall you'd be hard-pressed to find a fully-functional hermaphorodite, for instance. In all the human genetics journals I've read (thousands, by the way), there was exactly ONE single case study with a fertile hermaphrodite. One. Out of tens of billions of people who've lived on this planet.
The other 'genders' pushed by the left have no rational basis and are about as meaningful as people believing they're werewolves, unicorns, and vampires.
4957100 Theodore Roosevelt spoke softly, but he carried a big stick..
I tend to favor Yosemite Sam's philosophy...
That's still funny 37 years after I first saw it. And relevant too!
4957647
The most clear example are intersex people, people born with partially formed versions of both genitalia. At most only one is functional for reproducing so they are not hermaphrodites, but they have enough parts there that they can't be easily classified into one sex.
Heroicloser made a good point that that just means there are two sexes, if you take gender to be something separate from sex then you could have only two genders and multiple sexes.
I think whenever having discussions like this it's important to circle back to "why". Why do we care how many genders there are? On one hand keeping it down to 2, as heroicloser said, keeps social dynamics and even bureaucracy(how many boxes there are to tick on forms) simpler. So adding many genders isn't something to do for shits and giggles, there should be a significant reason to do so. The significant reason is that some people feel much more comfortable identifying as a third gender. Why that is, I don't know and I don't think they do, but that's okay there are lots of things we don't understand. Why do reading certain books make us feel comfortable and pleased we read them, but other books leave us bored and displeased? Who knows why some people like some and some people like others. What matters is that there is a significant portion of the population who do feel much more comfortable being referred to as a third gender. If I'm missing a "why" that you feel is important, let me know.
Now the question becomes which side outweighs the other, and at that point it's a weighted matrix of pros and cons. If there are big pros and small cons, e.g making it a societal norm to hold a door open for someone in a wheelchair, it's an easy decision to make. If there small pros and big cons, e.g personally carrying a disabled person around wherever they want on your back, it's an easy decision to make. If there are big pros and big cons, e.g installing expensive ramps to allow accessibility for wheelchair bound people, it's a tougher decision to make and depends on how much funding you have for infrastructure, how many wheelchair bound people are in the area, etc.
The issue with multiple genders I consider to be a small pros, small cons situation, which is comparably difficult to big pros, big cons decision. It really isn't that hard to be polite to be people and just refer to them as to how they want to be treated, and to add a couple extra boxes to forms. On the other hand, they do make up a tiny amount of the population and they can get by fine enough being forced into a category they don't enjoy. I think democracy is an effective way to decide which way to go: if there are enough people saying that multiple gender acknowledgement is important to take action, then that means that action is in fact justified.
4957667
I've never personally met anyone who identifies as a third gender. Mostly I simply do not understand their view, why is it uncomfortable for them to referred to as their sexual gender? I feel that may be a more important endeavor to understand then trying to accommodate something as flimsy as 'feelings'. We need to make sure we're not just treating a symptom and check to see if there's a real problem that needs addressing with these people.
4957727
Yes that is an important point too, if there are deeper issues acknowledging them as a third gender may not be the optimal solution. From what I've read it does seem to be the best way to do things, but it's far from clear cut. I've met a couple of people over the internet who identify as a third gender, but not many.
Why it's uncomfortable for them to be referred to as their sex is unclear, but a lot of things are. (I'm assuming you're male, I am for context) Imagine wearing a skirt, or high heels. At least for me, that leaves me somewhat uncomfortable. There's no real reason why, they're just clothing and many people wear them quite often, but I'd be uncomfortable wearing feminine clothes. A lot of people who identify as third gender as I understand it sort of switch between male and female, so some days they'd be uncomfortable being masculine, other days they'll be uncomfortable being feminine(or happy being one gender-esque or the other, it doesn't have to be negative motivators).
4957739
But that doesn't address the issue that beyond that vague concept of 'identity' there is still a biological marker saying "this (person/mammal/creature) is male or female" when we have such a convenient marker clearing things up it strikes me as silly not to use it.
You can be a feminine man or masculine woman. That's just challenging the concepts that society imposes on what genders should/should not do. Having to come up with a new name for a marginalized few is pushing it when they are outliers. Vocal outliers thanks to the wonders of the social networking on the internet, but outliers all the same.
4957746
This is the crux of the issue, whether they're few enough and harmed little enough to just ignore, or whether they common enough and seriously discriminated against enough that action should be taken to acknowledge them. I'm saying we decide through democracy, if >50% of people think they should be acknowledged officially then they should be acknowledged officially, otherwise action should not be taken. And in the meantime until one side has a solid majority of public opinion, people should avoid being rude and avoid calling people who disagree with them SJWs/bigots.
4957752
Also realized this after your reply but the people you describe strike me more as being gender-fluid rather then 3rd gender. I think we've discussed this as much as we can. It's been interesting. Let me see if I can review, correct me if I'm wrong on any of these:
- We agree to the concept that gender identity is distinct from biological sex
- We noted that gender identity is a complicated issue that may actually serve as symptoms to more pressing concerns
- We agree that this is a low-priority concern for society and we have more important issues to address
Personally I'm against the 'democratic' >50% say so and so it shall be approach. That way leads to tyranny of the masses. This is an issue that IMO is best resolved between individuals on the small scale.
4957755
I think you've got a clear picture of the issue, yes, and that we've discussed about as much as we can. And the people I described would be gender fluid, but would also want to be refereed to by non-he/she pronouns and want a third box to check on forms, so it's effectively equivalent to third gender.
4957906
Well, it's been an enjoyable discussion for me if nothing else. And you seem to have put a fair bit of thought into your views so you don't appear to be an NPC as far as I can tell.
If you ever feel like having another discussion, about anything really, feel free to message me or however that works. I'm not entirely sure how socializing on this site is suppose to work I haven't looked into it. I just reply to things.
Regardless I'm starting to feel like we may have derailed Alondro's blog here a bit too much with our conversation at this point and should stop before he tells us to get a room.
4957667 Yes, they have ambiguous genitalia. But they often do indeed have a gender which can be determined by genotype.
Truly ambiguous genders are exceedingly rare, and usually due to knockout mutations in the SRY pathway, causing an XY genotype to be expressed as female, or translocations of a portion of the Y chromosome onto the X resulting in a range of phenotypes (including the sole fertile hermaphrodite).
But in total, these make up a fraction of a percent of the total population. The rest who adhere to the '60+ gender' nonsense are lost in fantasy land.
4957752 I think the major problem is that >50% usually vote 'no' for these sorts of things... then left goes to leftist courts and gets their way regardless of what the majority wanted. That was even the case in California.
Would it be the same today if the same vote was held? Probably not now, but the fact remains, when the 'majority'... the 'democracy' the left are always pushing for... didn't give them what they wanted, they immediately turned to a more 'judicially aristocratic' method.
And that is the primary thing wrong with the left, they will NEVER accept that they've lost at anything. They're children who never, ever grow up and throw tantrums when they don't get their agenda candy.