Dishonesty On Demand
Or, The Wig Is Doing A Lot Of Heavy Lifting.
In the clip below, Calgary trans activist Victoria Bucholtz, aka Karla Marx, has words – deep, manly words – with Jennifer Johnson, a conservative politician.
Ms Johnson had previously upset activists, and much of the Canadian media, by describing the classroom propagation of trans activist ideology – specifically, setting children on a path to mutilation and castration – as a blemish and contaminant, akin to “poop” in cookies.
I think it’s fair to say the exchange that follows is not a triumph of reconciliation. It may, however, prove instructive – indeed, telling – though possibly not in ways that Mr Bucholtz intended.
Trans activism in a nutshell.
An aggressive, bullying man attempts to intimidate a woman into submission, demanding that she say something she knows isn’t true.
And he’s loving every minute of it. pic.twitter.com/CY0Fa3Wp34
— Mia (@_CryMiaRiver) September 17, 2024
Readers will note how “listening to the community” is conceived by Mr Bucholtz as deference and prostration, and regurgitating things that are obviously untrue. If it sounds like a struggle session, hold that thought:
Readers may likewise wish to ponder the chutzpah of a gaslighting bedlamite demanding “respect” while simultaneously demanding that everyone else surrender their probity and become dishonest and absurd, mouthing lies as and when instructed.
Ms Johnson had also expressed concern about the use by activists, in schools, of pornographic material. Concerns that much of the subsequent media coverage sneered at or dismissed as unfounded.
I’m assuming that Ms Johnson was referring to things like this.
Because, apparently, “vagina slime,” fellatio, and “strap-on hotness” are topics of urgent moral importance for middle-school children. Children who need to know about the joys of masturbating while driving.
But ssshh, don’t tell Mom and Dad.
Mr Bucholtz – “(She/Her)” – is an “LGBTQ+ facilitator,” an “activist,” and “currently teaches at Mount Royal University.” His areas of expertise include “the history of emotions.” When not demanding that people tell lies repeatedly and in public, he is “an avid mountaineer,” a drag queen, and a “dog mom.”
Mr Bucholtz’ educational chops can be witnessed here.
One more time:
Because it’s a “basic foundational principle.”
Via Mia Hughes.
Update, via the comments, where Rafi asks, not unreasonably,
Alas, I fear that if we pull at that thread, the whole sweater may come unravelled. I mean, if, as we’ve been told, quite emphatically, women can’t be transwomen, on account of being, you know, women, then surely only a man can be a transwoman. Which sounds like another way of saying, a transwoman can only be a man.
But hey, pile of yarn.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
This blog is kept afloat by the tip jar buttons below.
[ Shades eyes. ]
You wish you looked this good.
[ Heads for store room, returns with larger mirror. ]
I tend to agree with this. But my even more cynical take is that the pedo problem extends much more broadly into every institution or likewise where children are trusted to others. Especially within families, and while not at all to distract from the far more significant damage being done by certain elements of the Muslim population, I suspect that there’s something of a parallel reverse effect where some other people have become more comfortable speaking up about child sexual abuse in general because the Muslim abuse is in the news*. Not directly following-on, but parallel. I see this subject, news-wise, possessing somewhat of an accordion effect. Significant suppression of the problem followed by over reaction to the problem (McMartin preschool, etc.) followed by overreaction to the overreaction. Rinse, repeat to infinity.
This stuff is especially on my mind today as I had lunch yesterday with a good friend from our youth who was molested by our church youth minister. I don’t think that he knows that I know so occasionally when we get together, an awkward occurs. Yesterday something came up in discussion that I thought I hid until… over breakfast this morning my wife mentioned my reaction to the certain subject coming up. Though I only see him maybe once or twice a year, I get more and more uncomfortable when the conversation starts to wind down and I don’t know what the next subject might be. Which generally is how our conversations go after we have covered the past year or so of info and start reminiscing about random stuff from the past. He can get real quiet at times.
While at an intellectual/reasoning level I get that this is purely coincidence…well, the pedo from our church we later learned was originally chased out of…Michigan. All coincidence, of course, of course. But damn there’s a good number of coincidences that are popping up lately in other regards.
I get a sense, and it’s maybe just…coincidental…that as November approaches a lot of people seem to becoming more and more forthcoming about long ago issues that they have kept quiet about for whatever reasons. Maybe just anecdotal to me.
*Added: I suspect that I sense this because a big element in this go-round in abuse, both by the Muslims in Manchester(?) and the tranny school/drag queen story hour stuff, is the grooming.
Relevant
Fixed it for you.
[ Sympathetically slides jar of pickled eggs down bar toward David. ]
I can get this shabby treatment at home, you know.
Finally. After what? A dozen or so comments and five hours, that shoe finally dropped. I was worried, you know. I started to get itchy and stuff…
Seriously tho…seriously…the gayest video without the karma chameleon guy in it.
Sorry to hear that. I’d assumed you started this blog to get the shabby treatment you couldn’t get at home.
Police shootings: hood rats when confronted by police, instead of obeying commands point their gun at the cops.
Ironically, of encounters of cops with a perp with a gun, white suspects are more likely to get killed and black officers are more likely to shoot black suspects.
You can’t say hood rats. They’re “future doctors and ass-tro-nauts”.
@ccscientist, who said:
The single most racist-towards-blacks that I have ever encountered were black Chicago PD officers. You heard things from those guys that would have had your local head of the KKK looking around in alarm, and saying “Man, you can’t say things like that…”
I heard several of them saying things like the only way to solve the issues of South Side Chicago would be to line up D9 bulldozers blade-to-blade, surround that area with them, and then bulldoze the entire area including people into Lake Michigan. Their only concern for the aftermath? Damaging the fishing.
The white cops who were there at that gathering were looking on at the whole thing in horror; if they’d said something like that, end of career. Period. Even being in the room when it was said was probably a career risk.
Black cops aren’t actually, y’know… Black. They’re cops. After a short period of dealing with their ethnic peers, they usually wind up hating them more than the white cops do, which is kinda bizarre to observe. Not saying it’s right, but it is a “thing”.
[ Heads for store room, returns with larger mirror. ]
Black cops aren’t actually, y’know… Black. They’re cops. After a short period of dealing with their ethnic peers, they usually wind up hating them more than the white cops do
I’ve been watching an old reality show called “60 Days In”, about undercover agents in county jails. The black inmates say the same thing about the black COs. It’s amusing watching a “black radical” inmate ranting about the white supremacy of the prison when all of the COs up to the warden are black. The unconscious equation of “authentically black” with “criminal” is probably not what the inmates were intending.
The producers, on the other hand…
[ Looks up Wikipedia entry. ]
I’m guessing it’s not the kind of show that would elevate my estimation of the human species.
@David, who said:
The more personal experience you have of the people who frequent “lock-ups”, the less loss you feel when they inevitably wind up quite dead, performing their varied and sundry stupidities.
I have, over the years, gained increasing confidence that simply breaking three-time losers up for parts would leave the rest of the civilized population a hell of a lot happier, and a hell of a lot better off. Contemplate the sheer frictional waste represented by the average habitual law-breaker and their habits of sloth, theft, and irresponsibility.
Personally, I would start a tab on everyone at birth. How much of a net loss are you to society, in terms of “expenses caused”? What do you return? Are you a net loss, or a net contributor?
I’d hesitate to start eliminating people once they got into the red, but… Man, it’d be tempting. The other thing to consider is that if you were, say… Tissue-typed and tattooed at the second violent felony, and then the rule was that your third meant you were up for involuntary organ donation to any actual productive citizen?
I think people would begin to look at recidivism as a really, really bad idea. No need to have prisons, just leave the three-time losers living free, minus a few parts. And, continually gone back to for more… “Oh, hey… Too bad; that kid who got burned in the car accident you caused, driving drunk? For the third time? Kid needs skin grafts, and you’re just the type…”
Have a few examples like that out in society, clearly visible? People would likely think twice, and the ones that don’t would have self-identified as being particularly intransigent.
I truly believe that a lot of our current social ills stem from a lack of accountability, visible or otherwise. People see the idiot that got drunk and drove the wrong way down the highway wandering around minus a few pieces? They’d probably feel like said individual had paid the price, and look to correcting their own behavior.
Just a thought. Bloody-minded one, but that’s the mood I’m in.
I’m guessing it’s not the kind of show that would elevate my estimation of the human species.
Inevitably many of the undercover volunteers begin as hardcore police/prison haters, and end the show as, well, Kirk. All of them learn very quickly the difference between the inmates who would actually benefit from rehab, and the ones who would be better off on Ellesmere Island.
One thing I find compelling about the show is that Capitalism Will Not Be Denied; food being the only fungible resource, an economy based on trading food items exists in every single jail. Nearly all the fights are over a defaulted food debt, and beatings are doled out in a measured, limited form to match the size of the debt. It’s surprisingly formalized
Heh. It’s one of the reasons that in crime-related posts I often link or embed actual footage of the activities and choices that are subsequently minimised and excused by progressive pinheads. When you see what’s being done, and the kinds of creatures involved, it does tend to make the pretence more difficult to sustain.
And that’s a good thing.
Actually, this touches on a broader point. The claim, common among progressives, that they are more empathetic, more caring. More empathetic and caring than the likes of thee and me. But I see little evidence of this. Empathy suggests an ability to understand the motives and feelings of others, to have some theory of others’ minds, which progressives in particular seem very bad at. Hence “Nazi,” “white supremacist,” and so forth.
If a caring and empathetic progressive were in fact caring and empathetic, you’d think at least some of that caring and empathy might be directed towards the numerous, often poor, victims of criminal predation and antisocial behaviour. And yet, typically, the caring and empathy, or pretence of caring and empathy, is directed at the habitual abuser, the aggressor, the person who is by definition pathologically selfish. And not empathetic at all.
And the louder the claim of caring and empathy, the more likely the claimant is to ignore, or even mock, the victim, and to champion the habitual criminal, the habitual shitter on other people’s lives. The creature who mugs women at gunpoint, or who breaks into strangers’ homes and steals their stuff. And so we arrive at the eye-widening contortions of Clive Stafford Smith, a man who is amused by the violation of the law-abiding and their expectations of justice, which he waves away as “idiotic attitudes.”
Wanye Burkett has been posting about this recently.
And again, in the abstract, unencumbered by video evidence, it’s easier to perform these high-status moral contortions. But if someone were to actually stand across the road and watch a woman being mugged and terrorised at a bus stop, at gunpoint, by a man who’s done this many times before, and if the person watching were to promptly express loud and tearful concern, not for the victim, the woman being mugged, but for the mugger, then we might regard that person as perverse, delusional, a weird moral degenerate.
I know it’s not him but the lead singer looks an awful lot like a young Nigel Farage.
in the abstract, unencumbered by video evidence, it’s easier to perform these high-status moral contortions
https://www.takimag.com/article/what-if-im-right-redux/
They don’t care. The right supposedly does, but a large number on the right, I would argue most on the right, don’t genuinely care either. If they did, it wouldn’t be happening. Neither the expressed concern for the mugger, nor most of the mugging itself.
Testing…
I’m late with this, but it seems relevant. She actually could’ve marshaled some evidence.
This web article titled “No, Animals Do Not Have Genders”. https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/
John Money, among others, is cited.
In the online Oxford English Dictionary, the entry for the word “gender”, section 3.b on the sociological definition of the word, the first cite (1945) begins with “In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex)”. If you look up the article, it says in passing “…the domestic animals, where there is sex but no gender…” (advice: locate and consult article for context).