Jun 10Liked by Grant Smith

I think 'queer' started it's life as just another word for 'deviating from the norm'. It didn't get applied to homosexuality specifically until the 20th century IIRC. Indeed, I don't think it had a sexual connotation until around then. Perhaps in an odd (queer?) way, it's swerved back towards that original meaning. Because 'queer' is effectively meaningless. You can be hetrosexual and be queer (I won't delve too far into details) all it takes is to have sexual proclivities that are 'outside of the norm'. But the distribution of internet pornography has bred so many kinks, that huge numbers of people are calling themselves 'queer' with a straight face.

That's why I reject the word and by extension anyone who makes 'queer' their identity.

A homosexual is clear at least in their identity. I may not like it but at least it's clear.

Queer can be everything from pandasexuals to pansexuals to transexuals. It's too much. It's meaningless.

Honestly, I think if we have a future and the whole play isn't just going to come to the end, I think the future is where people don't talk about their sex life in public at all. And, while I'm dreaming, the future will belong to cultures that still have and cherish families: one man, one woman, children who's gender isn't swapped out according to modern trends.

Just my $.02

Expand full comment
Jun 11·edited Jun 11Liked by Grant Smith

Was taking a walk with my family this morning. There was a banner over the main town intersection "<out town> celebrates PRIDE". At which point one of my sons asked "What are they proud of?"


How would your approach apply to the following situation: during the winter of 2021/22 a family goes to a local high school concert where their daughter is playing. Everybody is wearing masks. One of the parents decides to take off the mask, and refuses to put it back on despite protestations of some of the other people present. That is clearly a norm violation. The parent is clearly queer in that respect. Should the parent comply according to your logic?

Expand full comment
Jun 10Liked by Grant Smith

Its past them

And past the actual Dysphoric

This is an Op now.

The men in dresses aren’t Queens now, they’re Jamie Gumb and Ed Gein in the service of “their country” you see 👀 🕵🏻

Not unlike the now utterly defunct militia

Expand full comment

I love what you gave us here!

I wish this fragment:

> I lack the epistemic hubris required

Was less of a barrier to minds such as mine. I judge you will lose many otherwise receptive minds at that phrase.

Expand full comment
Jun 10·edited Jun 10Liked by Grant Smith

🗨 This system, such as it is, founders on two very fundamental problems: the Knowledge Problem and agency problems.

🗨 It ignores fundamental principle, and commits at least two category errors. The forgotten principle is that a *liberal society should aim to minimize coercion*. The first category error is to believe that private actors cannot coerce [...]. The second category error is to believe that there is some sort of clear boundary between private entities (corporations especially) and governments. In fact, the true picture is like the Escher Hands.

🗨 Minority tyranny is the big problem with democratic politics.



PS Looks like the linguistic life could use a tad of timely queering, aka mind your caps: priDEMONth 😁

Expand full comment
Jun 10Liked by Grant Smith

But it’s good they don’t heed your advice, or they might become more accepted than they already are.

Expand full comment