When Two People Argue
The results can be… revealing:
You see, caring about your family, your ancestors, your lineage, your children, is “actually absurd,” apparently. And by implication, some kinds of context – where you came from, say – are to be scorned as worthless.
An earlier, related exchange comes to mind:
One more time:
I’m guessing that’s some kind of progressive metaphysics.
One commenter, a “pansexual she/her,” insists that civilisations are built by “stealing and oppressing other people.” Other, more edifying variables are not deemed interesting. I’m guessing that our “pansexual she/her,” the one who doesn’t think that lineage and genetic continuity play a role of any importance, isn’t herself a parent. And therefore hasn’t had the strange pleasure of seeing her children develop the features and attributes of various relatives. A sister, an uncle, a grandfather.
Though I doubt mere obliviousness would fully explain this phenomenon. There’s an element of contrivance, of affectation and perversity.
Mr Convente is currently invoking victimhood – because people have read his pronouncements and have either laughed or pointed out why those pronouncements are unconvincing. Mr Convente is also calling Mr Burkett various vulgar terms and is insinuating some nefarious racial motive, despite offering no actual evidence to that effect.
Because if you pause to consider the physical basis of family, even in measured terms, and if you point out the logical idiocy of the “It’s only by chance you were born to said ancestors” school of thought, seemingly favoured by so many progressives, then this can only be explained by some seething racial animus. Apparently.
Mr Convente also declares, with some pride, “I don’t want kids.” Being, as he puts it, “too selfish.”
Our Betters, ladies and gentlemen. See their pieties shine.
Lifted from the comments, which you’re reading, of course.
Darwin has entered the chat.
“That’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works.”
Every time.
If you poke through the original post, and the links therein, you’ll see variations of this assumption cropping up an awful lot. And there were many more that I could have included. It seems to be an implicit cornerstone of the worldview. But the implications are nihilistic and bizarre.
As I said in the linked post:
Given the illogic and unrealism, and the kinds of people using it, it doesn’t seem unfair to suppose that the objective is to diminish the target’s sense of meaning and territory, to make them feel undeserving, disidentified and demoralised. And it’s not hard to imagine the kinds of inclinations to which that might appeal.
You’re from fucking Rhode Island man. The argument makes itself for these people. When they think of the teeniest whitest state, naturally the first thing that comes to mind is to celebrate the termination of genetic lines.
When non-whites say that they want children, that they want the children to have the genes of themselves and their spouse, and they want those children to grow up among friends and communities of the same race, everyone understands and respects those as inbuilt human motivations.
Non-whites don’t get “hmm, explain this earthling motivation to me from first principles”, they don’t get accused of having authoritarian personality breeding fetishes, they don’t get propagandized to adopt babies from outside their race or to accept incompatible races into their neighborhoods.
There’s no confusion, no misunderstanding, no mistaken application of universalist principles. The principle is white erasure and the propaganda tactics follow from that.
Seemed apposite somehow.
Still surprised by how much use the ‘parenting’ tag gets. Didn’t see that coming.
It’s only by chance in the sense that you were born into your lineage through no act of volition or merit of your own.
And therefore you can’t look at being born white as an accomplishment, nor can you heap scorn on others for being born into more difficult circumstances.
The other dimension, I guess, is “What if you were born in Sudan? Wouldn’t you want to immigrate to Europe and get a lot of freebies, too?”
It’s a plea to apply the golden rule in the service of a political agenda.
The answer is yes. Yes, I would want to go to Europe and avail myself of their social services.
But don’t stop there with the hypotheticals.
Now imagine the consequences if I’m permitted to get what I want, along with large masses of my countrymen.
What’s the likely effect on the native culture? Is there a good chance the two cultures will adapt well to each other? Or are there irreconcilable differences between the two value systems?
Keep it up with the hypotheticals!
If the two systems don’t mesh, what’s the likely result? Is it a good result? If not, maybe we have to reconsider the proposition that if people want to move to Europe, it might be best if they not get what they want.
I can’t believe these people are adults.
Adults, maybe, but not often parents, from what I can make out. Which seems to have denied them some rather fundamental insights into the human condition. And I say this as someone who isn’t a parent.
The resulting worldview, the consequent posture, does seem rather inadequate, not up to the task. To put it in pop-cultural terms, it suggests a mindset in which, say, the final shot of Andor is devoid of meaning.
A sense of uniqueness, of individuality, does not conduce to the collective.
Damn:
My granddaughter is one year old today, she’s perfect, loves flowers and bees and most of the bugs she meets near Nanaimo BC Canada, she’ll be wearing an outfit with peaches on it today for her birthday, and opening up small gifts like the book “Love you Forever” by Robert Munsch and “The Great Cookie Kerfuffle” by Jessica Shaw. There will be pancakes for breakfast, and I imagine there’ll be cake at dinner, possibly before dinner because “you’re only one once” and dinner can wait, and frankly her perfect mom Brooke was very much like her back in the early 90’s.
She’s a rapid crawler, makes very small steps, unsteady standing, just starting on her living room size monkey bars.
So perfectly normal. She’s just like her mom.
Do you have an X account? Because I’m seeing the content as normal.
There is some good news on the trans front. Well kinda. The kinda good news we wouldn’t need if the bad news wasn’t such a thing.
x marc braun @marc58510
Yes, but I never actually followed him (or anyone else).
So I just sent a follow request.
This is what I find puzzling about progressives who get so vexed and indignant at someone even acknowledging, in measured terms, the role of lineage, of genetic continuity. Which is what started the kerfuffle above.
Even if those being indignant aren’t parents themselves, as is often the case, they presumably grew up in families and must have seen the recurring patterns among their own relatives – features and behaviours re-emerging over generations.
My own comment there was to the effect that bloodline is a metaphor for culture, which I am going to preserve and extend by teaching it to MY kids, MYSELF. The idea, which I hear from progressive types, that I should (and have a moral duty to / have no grounds to oppose) hand over any kid I just randomly happen to have around the house, to THEM, so THEY can train the kids THE RIGHT WAY, is utterly evil.
A mere element, you say? I think it is more that they will level any falsehood, mockery, or accusation they can muster. The hatred fairly glows on them.
One can be assured that Mr. Matt Convente looks after his family and lineage, for example.
Lying liars lie. They always lie. Even if they might say the truth, they’re still lying.
It’s not a new idea – the Jesuit maxim ‘Give me the child for the first seven years and I’ll give you the man.’ comes to mind – but the extent to which progressives will take it, and the means by which they will do so, is abhorrent.
Envy and resentment make for a flawed foundation.
So many Leftist loons hate their families. One has to wonder what mental illnesses they had to manifest in order to trigger those families to question or reject them.
From the replies:
This is said as if it were a credential of some kind. It has the air of a boast, albeit a contrived one. Though I can’t say I’m convinced.
For instance, if, while walking down the street, I saw some random 10-year-old girl being bullied, I might intervene, might not. Depends. But if I saw my 10-year-old niece being bullied, I would definitely intervene, quite vigorously. The bully or bullies would have a bad day.
I doubt I’m unusual in this regard.
Twitter won’t let me view Wanye’s posts any more.
OT, because today is today, IYKYK.
I noticed that up-thread. He took his account private. I’m guessing that he was getting a lot of troll spam.
To view his posts, we have to have an X account and send him a “follow” request.
Which is what started the kerfuffle above.
Dangit – getting this tweet is not available. I guess I need to have an X account. But there’s enough context here I can follow along.
Dicentra touched on it – from the point of view of the child, it seems like random chance. From the point of view of the parents, and from biology, genetics – the scientific realm – male gamete + female gamete = offspring, sex of which determined at the formation of said offspring, and characteristics of which will resemble the parents in varying ways.
If bloodlines weren’t real, we wouldn’t have collies and bulldogs and terriers. We wouldn’t have arabians and clydesdales and palomino ponies. Hell we wouldn’t have black or white or han chinese, and we certainly would not have magic brown indigenous peoples each with their own special tribal identity. 23 and Me would be testing what, exactly?
It seems that anti-religious people are applying some kind of religious philosophy to the science of genetics. The soul maybe, if not reincarnated, could be random as to where it lands, and if the soul is what makes you you, not the combination of genes, then maybe that’s the “randomness”? But i think I give them too much credit, as this “randomness” is only applied one way, to one specific group of people.
Matt tried to make it “paranoia” borne of “racism”, and then he stopped answering me.
David didn’t close with “share ye links and bicker” so I’ve continued contributing to the previous (Ephemera) post.
Unless David wants us to bicker here…
Da-yum!
Understanding the philosophy of the left, anything…anything that even remotely touches on the science of genetics is fascism. This narrative drives their agenda on everything from crime to gender identity to animal behavior to child rearing to history to sports and culture, everything is first primary numero uno, a denial that genetics plays a role in anything.
I was gonna ask for clarification but then WTP’s comment clicked in my old brain. No more day-um.
He wants us to bicker about the bar snacks.
Anyhow, have a few photos from my hike up Red Hill Mountain this morning.
Not mine. Who dey?
IS THIS TRUE?
OMG IS IT TRUE????
Except . . .
Eugenics was largely a progressive project & the retail expression, abortion, still persists with progressive support today.
Wing Commander Guy Gibson, VC, DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar and his crew who led the 16/17 May 1943 Operation Chastise raid that took out two dams on the Ruhr river. The attack required the bombers to approach the dams, heavily defended by antiaircraft fire and barrage balloons, that supplied electricity to a large portion of German industry in the Ruhr, at exactly 60ft and 208 kts to drop a bomb designed to skip like a stone till it hit the dam and sank. Eight of nineteen bombers were lost, Gibson and crew, after dropping their bomb, made two other approaches to divert fire from other attackers.
Maybe not coincidentally, I happened to catch part of a program yesterday about “great inventions of the 20th century” or something, and this very bomb was featured. They had to spin the thing backwards before dropping it so it wouldn’t skip up over the dam but rather drop behind it.
I wondered why they didn’t approach from the other side and shoot a missile into the front of the dam, but maybe the frontal approach wasn’t favorable to approaching planes.
1943, no missiles to shoot. The Germans came up with glide bombs controlled from a bomber, but the most the Allies had in ’43 were small unguided aerial rockets that would have done bupkis to a dam. Additionally, the design of the bomb was such that the explosive force was amplified by exploding underwater.
I tend to think of pretty much every thread as an open thread.
[ Slurps coffee. ]
Yet in his X feed, he refers to how “white” people are, more often than would seem necessary, as if their skin colour were some invalidating condition.
Examples abound.
Via Julia.
Despite the disingenuous questions – “What does a man look like?” – numerous studies have confirmed that human beings can determine the sex of other people, especially adults, and especially men, with remarkable accuracy, very close to 100%, even in restricted conditions – no visible hair, no make-up, no facial hair, ears hidden, no movement, etc.
But apparently we’re supposed to pretend that we can’t.
Despite the disingenuous questions – “What does a man look like?”
https://archive.ph/I9sUJ
The argument being that when MtFs try to normalize going into spaces where they’re not wanted there’ll be pushback from the people who don’t want them, and that pushback unfortuately includes masculine-looking women being mistaken for MtFs and confronted.
MtFs make the issue salient by publishing pictures of themselves territory marking in women’s bathrooms, crowing that they’re in every bathroom, probably in your bathroom, and there are more of them every day. The result of this awareness raising is that square jawed or broad shouldered women, who previously would have been taken to be women who happen look a bit masculine, are now more likely to be taken for MtFs.
The demanded solution, obviously, isn’t for MtFs to stay out of where they’re not wanted, but to legally protect the right of MtFs to go where they’re not wanted and to punish those who don’t want them there.
Precisely. And worse.
The author of the piece, Mr Sophie Molly – a cross-dressing man who likes to boast of demanding needless bra fittings – cites a handful of examples of women being challenged in women’s toilets on grounds of being mistaken for cross-dressing men. These incidents are, needless to say, extremely rare and, more to the point, have only occurred since actual cross-dressing men – much like Mr Sophie Molly – have started barging into women’s spaces, heightening sensitivities.
Though of course he doesn’t mention that, despite its bearing on the supposed evidence he cites.
Why, it’s almost as if men who lie continually – whose “identity” is premised on an attempt to deceive – are not to be trusted.
Fancy that.
I noticed that the article is in an Irish Alphabet People™ screed sheet, so they might have a point.
(When hitting “post comment” the first time got the “Nonce is Invalid” popup – not inapt…)
You also need to click the “follow” button and wait for Wanye to approve your request, because he made his account private to all but approved followers. I’m still waiting for mine to be approved, more than a day later. [ Sheds tear. ]
Okay.
Coffee? Not tea? What kind of Brit are you???
[ Recoils in hypocritical horror while slurping coffee. ]
Above, Mr Sophie Molly, aka Sophie Sparkles, aka Euan Weddell.