Reheated (99)
For newcomers, some items from the archives:
Romantic complications of a very modern kind.
To which, Mags adds, “He she didn’t use her his pronouns.” Indeed. A notable omission. One that results in finger-wagging from fellow Reddit forum regulars: “You do have to respect that SHE is the expert on her own gender, not you.”
It’s a bold claim. Despite which, the person being scolded – a woman who expects to be taken seriously as a man – can’t bring herself to take seriously as a woman her own male partner. There’s no she or her, just a grudging them. Which does rather cast some doubt on the broader enterprise.
It’s Trivial When The Victim Is Someone Who Isn’t Me.
Habitual car theft is a “victimless” crime, says Nora the socialist.
Assistant professor wants to censor the “violent” language of astronomy.
It’s all terribly oppressive – for the implausibly faint of heart, I mean. And should a colleague carelessly refer to a planet being stripped of its ozone layer by a catastrophic gamma-ray burst, this is obviously “misogynistic language” and a basis for the sternest of hands-on-hips chiding.
At which point, readers may wish to ponder whether the best people to be doing astronomy, or teaching astronomy, or to be making workplace rules for astronomers, are the kinds of people who mouth dogmatic assertions without any trace of supporting logic, and who are distracted, even distressed, by hearing the word collision being used to describe a collision.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
How many of you — especially the ladies — would pass The Bro Test?
Such a poor economy that seniors must work two jobs just to make ends meet.
Jaywalking made legal…
I’m trying to follow the logic here. If there’s disproportionate amount of citations/arrests of some specific protected identity goup, then the proper action is to make that offense legal.
Now, sexual orientation is a protected class. Are there any heterosexuals who’d like to join me in a crime spree? Say, repeatedly burglarizing the homes of elected representatives?
If we put in a little effort, we can get that legalized!
That’s not a sacred caste.
Request denied.
Already well underway:
Note that the progressive authors of the “analysis” in question – authors who boast of their professionalism, fact-checking, and academic credentials – showed no interest whatsoever in the possible effect of endless, widespread excuse-making for antisocial behaviour, and its role in making such behaviour more likely, not less.
@David, who said:
The interesting thing with these progressive idjit types is that they’re apparently unable to work the extrapolation that everyone else is working as they speak, and realizing that the logical extension of their ideal is that if the rules don’t apply to their chosen victim class because they’re unable to process normal rules of behavior, then the ultimate extension of that means denying all of them both their agency and their humanity, which means… They’ve no rights at all.
Carried out far enough, their ideas imply that the people they think they’re defending aren’t really people at all, and are mere animals. Nuisance species, which can be dealt with the same way that we deal with bears and other predators that impinge upon civilized spaces: Trap, relocate to the wilderness, and kill if they come back.
We’re sorta doing this with catch-and-release judicial management. At some point, it’s going to be recognized that if you deny accountability and responsibility to blacks and others because “race”, well… The logical extension is, treat them as nuisances.
None of this is going to be recognized in anything other than retrospect, long after the solution is imposed: “Well, they’re not responsible? Then, I guess they’re not really people, are they?”
From the government website:
Fuck em all. Every one of these racist invaders and oikophobic leftists.
One way or another, “we’re all just objects in their world.”
From the government website:
Yes, that would make a trip to Beachy Head complete as it otherwise has no historical or cultural significance.
Meanwhile in Antipodal art news, shockingly this fine bit of sculpture has been taken down.
In the same neck of the woods, the defense minister is appalled for the usual reasons.
Not sure who’s more shameless, the drivers or the journalists. They just won’t admit black people can ever be bad human beings.
Beneath all of the rhetorical contrivance, that would seem to be the premise, the underlying assumption. It crops up endlessly. It’s practically a cornerstone of modern progressivism. And yet, those who operate on this assumption will tie themselves in knots to avoid the obvious implication. And, needless to say, they will often get quite angry if this inference is teased out. They may even bark “Racist!”
Which is, to say the least, somewhat ironic.
Well, if you poke through the quoted article, you’ll see just how determined the authors are to conjure victimhood where none is plausible, to scrape every barrel bottom, to indulge any excuse, however self-serving or contrived, and to invert all moral perception. And so, the habit of driving illegally and running red lights, thereby risking the lives of others, including schoolchildren, is framed, bizarrely, as evidence of victimhood – not, as one might think, a sign of moral degeneracy.
And the morally subnormal creatures who do these things, and who do them over and over again, are framed as being somehow oppressed by even the most basic expectations of lawfulness and reciprocal consideration – anything that might inhibit their selfishness and delinquent impulses. We’re very clearly expected to feel sorry for them.
And as the authors are devout progressives, anything approaching realism or coherence is jettisoned to this end. Obvious questions and lines of thought are studiously avoided, such that the article takes on a surreal, unhinged quality.
FIFY. See Kirk, above.
It’s worth noting that this endless flattery and excuse-making, this continual tongue-bath, might, given time, tempt the best of us. A world in which we have no responsibility, and any shortcoming, any failure, any degeneracy, can be blamed on someone else. Just rinse and repeat, daily, for generations.
It’s like watching a high school rendition of Clark and Dawe.
The facts are still unclear: As I understand it, the ship was not driven onto the rocks, which would be grounds for firing of the captain, but rather drifted after losing power. So why did it lose power? Were all proper measures taken when it lost power?
Hair dryers & curling irons would be my guess.
“Don’t you care about your legacy?“
Vibrators.
[ Hastily takes coat to car, before anyone can set it on fire in the alley. ]
But I suspect my fists might start to itch if he opened his mouth.
I think you’ll find the car is already on fire.
[ Sirens, smoke, innocent face. ]
If anyone’s getting aroused by this thread, I’m upping the price of the drinks.
The only one getting aroused by this thread is chappie there posted upthread wearing the lace micro-mini and cheap wig, titillating himself for the camera.
I cleverly tricked you into thinking the bar snack delivery guy’s car was mine.
Curses. Good thing there’s a Plan B.
[ Looks up number for Offal House. ]
“Don’t you care about your legacy?“
Or she believes that the future is still to be fought for, that it’s not just the convergence at infinity of the moral fashions of the Current Year. That the Right Side of History isn’t the morally correct side but the side that fights, wins and gets to write its version of events. That losing and having her enemies write an unflattering legacy is a possibility, but that it’s better than going down in history as a toady.
The facts are still unclear: As I understand it, the ship was not driven onto the rocks, which would be grounds for firing of the captain, but rather drifted after losing power. So why did it lose power? Were all proper measures taken when it lost power?
Even if it hadn’t been run aground, normally. usually, generally, if you are in command, you are in command, and everything good is due to your minions, everything that goes sideways is your responsibility, even for events you had no reasonable way of knowing, up to and including being hit by a meteor.
My wife says that I found that a little too amusing. Though I didn’t have to read it to her. My bad really. Props on the Clark and Dawe as well.
Sooo…like…most people. Especially most people whom we stupidly let run things and rule over us.
Shelby is looking for someone to trauma dump with. Also cuddles.
You “don’t have to meet” her husband.
@Farnsworth M Muldoon, who asserted in naivete the following:
This represents the old, pre-mainstreaming of females line of thinking. It was the tradition, and it had arrived at that state through long, sad experience going back through the thousands of years that culminated there at the end of the Age of Sail.
Nowadays, we’re much more aware of the impact on events stemming from women being on board ships and in command of anything. It’s never, ever their fault; if it is, we cover it up, hide it, and never punish the darlings as if they were men.
This works both ways; down, as when a subordinate female does something wrong, and up, when someone’s boss does something wrong. It is never the woman’s fault, she’s utterly lacking in agency. It’s always someone else’s fault, generally a man, and those are the people who get punished. Never mind that she made the decisions, that she was in charge… She is woman; she is unaccountable.
End state of this experiment is gonna be they wind up back in the same state they were back before all this “women’s rights” bullshit got started: They’re going to be given the exact amount of social authority that they’ve earned and demonstrated, which is none.
It never ceased to amaze me over the years I was in the Army how the females were never held accountable for much of anything when they committed serious acts of irresponsibility or actual wrong-doing. It was always “Yeah, she’s a girl, not her fault…”
Further amazed me at how few in the system recognized where that mentality eventually ends, and what a nasty piece of work all that is. Jack Nicholson’s diatribe in “As Good as it Gets” is very true to life. The system just keeps cranking out these nasty entitled self-involved twats like that is its primary goal… Not defense of the nation.
@Kirk October 31, 2024 6:31 pm
Who, focusing on one female captain and not the principle, said nothing to refute that which I said, e.g., VADM Joseph Aucoin.
Reading comprehension ain’t your thing, is it?
Yes, but “your responsibility” is not the same as “your fault”. That’s what courts of inquiry are for, right? Otherwise every captain whose ship sank due to enemy action would be permanently put on shore or dismissed from the service.
More warning signs than a highway crew.
She gave her Big Five personality numbers but forgot her Dark Triad numbers.
This woman is teaching your kids.
Dammit Kirk, he’s a doctor!
“award-winning, established and emerging writers, poets, artists, performers and activists based across East Sussex, with heritage from across the globe”
I wonder how many are based outside Brighton?
Another data point… For what? I dunno; make your own choices:
Surprise, surprise, surprise…
Re extended definitions of drink-drive.
The late Mrs Nerd had been a Police officer in England.
When we went to a restauant, she would drive us there in her car, and have a glass or two of wine.
She would then hand me, a non-drinker, the car keys before leaving the restaurant.
She once told me- I’m sorry, I can’t remember the details- that walking up to the car with the keys in your hand could be enough to justify the Police getting involved.
When their neuroses have neuroses.
“There’s no doubt about him being a loved child and he showed that in his actions […]”
Perhaps?
What luvvies do…
It’s ever so much easier to tear down than it is to build up. The theories are just to gull the public.
Shaking my head, really…
Not to question this woman’s correctness, but I want you to consider the arrogance with which she’s framing this: It’s essentially “Me credentialed; me right”.
Which I will submit is the primary flaw in 99.9% of modern thought processes and public discourse. There is precisely zero discussion of actual, y’know… Evidence. The lab-coated priesthood no longer feels that it is necessary to “show their work”.
She says nothing more than “I am educated, therefore I’m right…”, trying to ridicule anyone who questions her narrative. She might be right, for all I know, but the way she is going about arguing from authority is where the problems come in.
If you argue something from evidence and it proves to be wrong, later on? You’ve basically done no harm to your position of trust and authority. You made your case based on best available evidence, and you were honest about it. People will likely retain their trust in you and your authority.
If you argue something strictly from the point of view that you’re in authority and are trusted, then prove to be wrong… Oh, my. A much different thing.
And, something these overeducated dolts don’t seem to understand; trust and confidence are finite things, and are not automatically owed to you because you’ve got all the right boxes ticked on your CV or resume, dependent upon your continent.
This sort of crap is precisely where the whole COVID BS went off the rails; you tell me I have to get the “vaccine”, which isn’t really a vaccine in the classic definition, and that it will a.) prevent the spread of disease, and b.) keep me from getting it.
Then, I observe the following in my personal life: All the people I know who have had the vaccine have also gotten COVID, and they’ve also transmitted it. Which is not in any way my understanding of how vaccines work; nobody I know who has been given the polio vaccine has gotten polio, and they haven’t transmitted polio to anyone, either.
So, at this point? You assert that you “know better” because “credentials”? I’m pretty much just going to ignore your assertions and consider anything you say as being suspect. Highly ‘effing suspect, because if you tell me the vaccine for COVID is something that works, when I can clearly see that it does not…?
Needs the “Not All Muslims” tag. As in “Breaking: Not all Muslims stabbed a four year old girl today in a dance class”.
@pst314, who said:
I think that this is probably the most irritating feature of the progressive left: Their facile BS when it comes to saying things like “Not all Muslims are terrorists” while simultaneously saying “All cis-gendered white males are racist oppressors guilty for the acts of their ancestors going back to the beginning of time”.
I mean, which is it? Are you only individually responsible for your own acts, or are you collectively guilty for everything that someone who vaguely looks like you might have done from creation forward?
Logically, it cannot be both. So, tell me… Which proposition is it? I want to know, because if I’m supposed to just cease to exist because “white”, then I want to know why the Muslims aren’t held accountable for all of their collective crimes throughout history…
See: Doublethink.
See also: The meme “1984 was not supposed to be a how-to manual.”