Reheated (60)

For readers of a technical inclination, these ‘automated’ drawings involved suspending a felt-tip pen from the underside of a chair,
LOL.

LOL.
You’ll notice I included a photo, in case the complexities and nuance were insufficiently clear to you unartistic types.

I… followed… the… links… to… the… photos.
No refunds. Credit note only.

From the same source keyboards are rayciss.
I am guessing if your language doesn’t have an alphabet, you don’t need a keyboard. Maybe.

An audience is required in order to feel transgressive… They want to be naked near you.
That.

That.
Again, they want their victims to be discomfited. It’s a dominance game, played by broken people. Hence the so-called ‘protestors’ seeking out public spaces where people are likely to object, including parents with small children in tow. It’s essentially a kind of challenge – a gratuitous imposition on others, a form of aggression – and should be regarded as such. It’s one of those instances where one’s most likely initial response – say, “Why do these degenerates want to wave their genitals at my children?” – is entirely apt.
Not entirely unrelated.

Tolerant left…
“[L]earn your f*cking place.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/10/nyc-jews-for-trump-caravan-attacked-with-rocks-and-pepper-spray-flags-ripped-up/

An old acquaintance looking to harass women again.

Some more healthy family dynamics on display.
I pray to God that Dad lied to his daughters just to get them to shut the hell up and let him die in peace…

Hence the so-called ‘protestors’ seeking out public spaces where people are likely to object, including parents with small children in tow. It’s essentially a kind of challenge . . .
Ah, yes, Them . . .
For one of the formal responses to the ‘protestors’, them being told so by an annual San Francisco event, there was the First Church Of The Last Laugh, and pointed comments of Of course, no costume is an absent costume, so just a sock isn’t going to do it . . .
. . . and then, in turn, the quite official San Francisco City response to the ‘protestors’ was indeed Ah, No, just No.
Such complete with publication on city letterhead and all that, or however such is posted . . .
Words to the effect of We do have events that one can attend, and visiting tourists may indeed attend if they so wish, and the rest of us are going to continue to run random daily errands Without Being Bothered, Thank You!
—Yes, the idiots complained, and the locals just continued to point out their and that City And County Official Proclamation of We do have assorted events, you can go there . . . . .

For readers of a technical inclination, these ‘automated’ drawings involved suspending a felt-tip pen from the underside of a chair, resulting in random scribble on numerous sheets of paper positioned underneath.
She’ll be hearing from Leon Foucault’s lawyers.

“Equivalent education,” besides being untrue, is irrelevant.
At the time, I was tickled by just how rapidly, and shamelessly, the pretensions of altruism and egalitarian piety gave way to envy, vanity and other less lovely motives. The veneer of piety was awfully thin.

Want more screaming-white-chick-car videos? This is how you get more screaming-white-chick-car videos.

I wonder if similar legislation exists in Yaniv’s jurisdiction?
Unfortunately, Yaniv is exploiting the Human Rights Commissions’ infrastructure and not the civil or criminal courts. Every province in Canada has a Human Rights Commission as does the Federal Government. These are semi-judicial bodies that generally report to the legislatures in their jurisdictions. Anyone can file a complaint about just about anything.
The complaints against the home salons that refused to wax “her” balls were filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Commssion. Her current “complaint” has been filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. So they’re different commissions staffed with different people. There is very little accountability in the Human Rights process and it’s not unusual for trivial or baseless complaints to make it deep into the process.
Here’s a link outlining the complaint process for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/about-process
Disgruntled employees will often file a Human Rights complaint rather than take their employer to court because employment law is well defined and most complaints are baseless. There’s a higher chance of success if you claim discrimination because the process and oversight is a lot more touchy-feely and political.

…these ‘automated’ drawings involved suspending a felt-tip pen from the underside of a chair, resulting in random scribble on numerous sheets of paper positioned underneath. This feat was “REALLY exciting,” we learn, as it “explored movement, time, place and permanence.”
Good thing this creature never came across a seismograph – she’d be over the moon. Then again maybe not – probably too Patriarchal or some such idiocy.

“we have trained ourselves to reach predetermined conclusions in complex, nuanced, and productive ways.”
O/t, a doctor once described my cough as “productive”. But not nuanced, sadly.

From “The Spectator”, James Kirkup on how the trans debate could cost a college porter his job:
“This is a story about a man called Kevin Price, who was until last week a councillor and who is, for now at least, employed as a porter at a Cambridge college.
The story illustrates two points. First, political conflict over trans rights and women’s rights is far from over, especially in the Labour Party. Second, people who say the wrong thing in this debate can put their livelihood at risk.
Mr Price last week resigned from Cambridge City Council. He had sat as a Labour councillor since 2010 and was once the council’s deputy leader.
He resigned rather than follow the Labour Group whip and vote for a motion that declared, among other things that:
‘Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary individuals are non-binary.’
Those are, of course, the holy words of trans orthodoxy, a catechism that cannot be questioned despite the countless questions it raises. (Here’s a starter for ten: if trans women are women, what does the word ‘women’ mean?)
Mr Price quit because, he said, he could not accept the unquestioning, uncritical adoption of those words. He noted that for some people, those words have highly troubling implications.
Resigning, he said:
“‘The inclusion of the first three sentences of this motion will send a chill down the spines of the many women who believe there is a conflict of rights and who want to be able to discuss those in a calm and evidenced-based way….[It is] foolish to pretend that there are not widely differing views in the current debate or that many people, especially women, are concerned about the impact on women’s sex-based rights from changes both in legislation and within society and who fear, not only that those rights are under threat, but that they are unable to raise legitimate questions and concerns without a hostile response.’
And that might have been the end of the story, seeing Mr Price ending his career as an interesting example of a politician putting principle before position or the party line, with a fairly measured contribution to a debate that too many politicians are still wary to enter.
If that was the end of it, Mr Price’s tale might prove only that Labour has some way to go before it reaches a settled, unified stance on this issue. There are good reasons that Keir Starmer has been trying to take a ‘listen to both sides’ position on the trans debate; one of those reasons is that his party is seriously split on the issue.
But that is not the end of Mr Price’s story. For Mr Price is now facing the sort of ‘hostile response’ he spoke about – calls for his employer to dismiss him from his job, because of his thoughts on sex and gender and ultimately, because of his reluctance to say the holy words.
According to Varsity, a student paper, the Union of Clare Students has condemned him and demanded the college authorities act against him. By discussing issues of policy and law at a council meeting, Mr Price had jeopardised the ‘safety’ of the college’s trans and non-binary students, the union suggested in a statement.
Varsity further quotes one Clare student as saying Price is ‘unfit both to hold public office and to be in a position of responsibility over students.’
Now, I didn’t go to Oxbridge and I’m not much for Marxist analysis of society as a class struggle. But I know enough about both to suggest that there’s something both distasteful and revealing about a bunch of Cambridge undergraduates threatening the livelihood of a man employed to serve them because he refuses to share their opinions and adopt their language.
There’s been a lot of talk in recent years about free speech on campus being under threat, and a lot of that talk has been overblown, based on nothing more than stupid self-important students doing what stupid, self-important students have always done and disinviting or banning people from speaking at events that no reasonable person would ever want to attend anyway.
But some of the concerns about universities and free inquiry are justified: just ask Professor Selina Todd, an Oxford historian who needed bodyguards because some people objected to her research on sex and gender in history.
And now it appears that the refusal to permit dissent or debate about sex and gender could cost a man his job at a university. I hope not, and not just for the sake of Kevin Price.
Yet if that is what does come to pass, Mr Price will be far from the first person to face such an egregious outcome, though he might just be the first man I’ve heard of to find himself in this position. Perhaps that might help persuade some people who have been too quiet on this topic for too long to find their voices at last”.

…the Student Union’s priority is to ensure that the “trans and non-binary community” feels both “celebrated” and “empowered.”
It’s strange how that seemingly joyous word ‘celebrate’ has come to represent so much of the muddled thinking that has brought us to where we are.
When we think of the early, imperfect experiments in religious tolerance in Europe, the burghers of the 16th/17th century Netherlands come to mind, all confident in the ‘knowledge’ that many of the people who lived peacefully beside them were also people who held beliefs that were wrong, perhaps wrong to the extent that holding them guaranteed eternal damnation. It might be OK to do business with them, even to be friendly with them, but you certainly wouldn’t let one of your children marry one of them. It was a revolutionary idea and, as it grew and was adopted elsewhere, it permitted the Western world to emerge from centuries of religious persecution and conflict without everybody having to sign up to the same set of beliefs. It is a precious legacy and one that we should not allow to wither away.
And yet it is withering away, not because it is being explicitly rejected by any more than a tiny minority (most people, including these Student Union types, still like to think of themselves as tolerant) but through a gradual process of semantic shift. If you were to ask me, for example, whether I am tolerant of homosexuality, the accurate answer would have to be ‘no’; I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with homosexuality so the issue of tolerance doesn’t arise. But this understanding of what tolerance means is being erased. Increasingly, to be considered ‘tolerant’ requires celebration, while true tolerance, the tolerance that allows those who disagree with each other to live together in peace despite their disagreements, is decried as intolerance.
So why has this semantic shift occurred? I sometimes wonder whether it isn’t at least partly due to the ever-narrowing field of things for the typical enlightened Westerner to be tolerant of. After all, if my definition of ‘wrong’ is basically ‘that which harms others’, then more and more things move into the field where tolerance simply doesn’t arise (such as homosexuality, in my example above). The only problem is that ‘tolerance’ is a bit of a shibboleth in Western culture; for an awful lot of people it is really terribly important to be seen and thought of as tolerant, particularly of things that were historically not tolerated. But how are you to get opportunities to be seen and thought of as tolerant if there are fewer and fewer things for you to be tolerant of? So you’re very happy to go along with a shift in the general understanding of what tolerance is if that’s enough to make those opportunities begin to arise again.
But that, while it may be personally gratifying, is also very dangerous. Because if we conflate tolerance and celebration – two things that are not only different but actually contradictory – there is a real risk that we will forget how to tolerate those things that we cannot bring ourselves to celebrate. And that is the whole f***ing point of tolerance. It is clear that many people, particularly among the ‘educated’ young, have already reached that point. But I remain confident that the battle isn’t lost yet.

Wow, four! I’m assuming that the salt has antiseptic properties…

Back in 1975, the late Bob Hope had quipped: “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”. The fine line between tolerance and celebration was already being blurred even back then.

Because if we conflate tolerance and celebration – two things that are not only different but actually contradictory…
Thing is, one might almost feel sorry for young people who are immersed in modern leftism. I spent an hour or two this morning browsing several fairly mainstream leftist websites and was struck by just how much of the content is ludicrously hyperbolical. I mean, if you’re an insecure youngster and your social identity is based on the kind of operatic narcissism so often found among lefties – see Salon, Slate, half of leftist Twitter – this is unlikely to make you more tolerant of demurral. If you read, say, Salon or Slate unironically – though one wonders how – you might well believe that Amy Coney Barrett will make annual pregnancy compulsory, and that Trump is only days away from outlawing both voting and the existence of brown people.
It’s unhinging stuff.

… so of course nobody is suggesting that a college porter should be fired because of what he thinks or says. He should be fired because he is endangering the safety of a number of students. That changes everything.

There’s been a lot of talk in recent years about free speech on campus being under threat, and a lot of that talk has been overblown, based on nothing more than stupid self-important students doing what stupid, self-important students have always done and disinviting or banning people from speaking at events that no reasonable person would ever want to attend anyway.
Please clarify “recent years” because the threatening violence to force college admins to cancel speakers and even showing up to keep the audience away from speakers has intensified in the last 4 years but goes further back. And each time something new happens warnings that indulging it will only bring more gets the usual “this isn’t a big deal” treatment.
And here we are. Colleges run by the Red Guard.

On final thing that I do feel I ought to add is that all this is very much about the woke. The woke are not synonymous with the left. I am broadly on the left, not the Marxist left and certainly not the post-modern left, but the left nonetheless. I believe in a free market economy with sufficient levels of taxation to enable both the provision of public services and a certain amount of redistribution of resources from the richer to the poorer.
I am aware that for some of those here (and for many if not most of those on a site like Samizdata), this is enough to put me on the side of evil. But I think that for most here it simply makes me someone with a different view who can be disagreed with and engaged with respectfully.
The key cultural issue today is about what the rules of the political game are. What side you’re on is almost secondary in the grand scheme of things.

Yep, white chick … this time in her bathtub instead of a car.