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.
Yeah, maybe queer can go back to its original meaning then. I like how its one syllable, simple. It also just kind of sounds right to describe anything that deviates from the norm. I think that not talking about sex life in public has strong rational support, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make here. I also think that monogamous heterosexual marriage is very unlikely to be some arbitrary social construct. There are reasons for it, some better understood than others, a fence to be torn down to our peril.
Jun 11, 2023·edited Jun 11, 2023Liked 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?
Excellent question. The argument I'm making is really only meant to apply to norms of organic origin, not those that have been established through direct coercion. I know that changes the argument substantially, but you know that's where I'm always coming from given my priors, would've made this article too long to flesh that out, because then the advocates of such ostentatious displays could retort that norms around sexual behavior have been established by coercion. I think that is clearly not the case, but then it becomes more of a research question where you're needing to look at sociological data and common norms related to sexual behavior around the world that are stable independent of culture. I think I would ultimately win that argument, but with the sciences completely captured by egalitarian ideologues that have let their biases and overarching social objectives supersede their teleological mandate to search for truth, especially in the social sciences, I'm sure you could find low quality scientific literature taking the other side.
I like the idea of social progress, and would call myself a progressive if the word wasn't hijacked by ideologues with an unconstrained vision who target the superficial perception of social progress over what I would call *real* social progress. To me, the only real social progress is evolving away from norms established by coercion towards norms established by voluntary/cooperative interaction along with the behaviors that inhibit the former and facilitate the latter. These will be norms embedded within nature, which is why true humility is so critical. If we don't understand ourselves as we are, we can't know what limits we truly face in an earnest quest for real social progress. Such norms are the only way to constrain the behavior of psychopaths who, absent the ability to empathize, will always lean more towards coercion if given the opportunity, which is what political ponerology is all about in my estimation.
Yes, it is an op, I'm essentially trying to make it clear that these ostentatious displays don't have a moral or rational justification given the purported purposes (e.g. love, dignity, respect, you know, liberal stuff). Regarding militia, you could argue its been defunct since Presser v. Illionois. In a strange twist of fate this decision is probably one of the main motivating factors behind the socialist left adopting the long march strategy in the first place. This is why you can't violate your principles, nature has creative ways of punishing such indiscretion even if it takes over 100 years.
That reference Presser v. Illinois et al was a bit convoluted and still is even for my mind ~
The end of the militia I was referring to was in the last decade when people realized it was a farce put on by the Police, combined with Trump faith & hopey changey.
If its at the point of the people forming militias the courts have either done their worst (Dred Scott) or failed (USA now).
You see the resort to war means laws have failed.
Silent Enim Leges Intra Armas.
The laws are silent in the midst of arms. As you will likely discover, the trained will be fighting soon until dead or disabled (you’re trained, Sir). Speaking of which if it gets to soldiers then talk, laws, court decisions (🤣) are past. The faster you ditch the laws the farther you are from being dead in a ditch, the reverse is also true. If Honorable First Principles are still needed;
The opponents of the Constitution have usurped, undermined, certainly suspended in fact Constitutional government and many and any other law that impedes them, we are either Free of our dead mistress the Dead Republic and our oaths abrogated by counter party treachery...and we owe them nothing...
....or if one insists on animating her corpse.... well then the Republic is seized by traitors and enemies and our duty is clear.
Which principle do you prefer first as first principle? Shall it be our Principal Dead Mistress and we are free , except perhaps for revenge?
Or our Principal duty to free her of her obscene captors?
Do we need swords or lawyers?
A sword comes to the point, a gun means what it says, lawyers on the other hand are taught in school that contract law means writing an Iron clad contract as half the lesson and the other half shredding any contract. I’ll observe that we have many lawyers in America but not one soldier since Ashli Babbitt. Perhaps it’s fitting the Republics last dead soldier was a woman, and we let our Dead Mistress the Republic be buried with Babbitt.
For I too can bandy words and band them as Iron , or twist free us all free as Brigands upon the earth... for words are as flexible as my silken tongue and Rhetoric trained mind.
None of this will mean anything if you live and gaze upon corpses you made- or if you are made a corpse. Either way words ended.
Jun 10, 2023·edited Jun 10, 2023Liked 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.
I like this explanation. I've yet to be convinced that sanctified coercion is socially necessary. I think once it is reached for as a tool, you've essentially admitted that you're a failure (at being a proper liberal anyway).
I think the biggest challenge we face is that these problems and category errors are being deliberately exploited. The fact that people have a hard time wrapping their head around the functional implications of 'public-private partnerships' a la WEF is a problem for those hoping for non-tyrannical outcomes in electoral politics.
As for changing the caps, I leave that sort of thing to my neanda Daniel!
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
Yeah, maybe queer can go back to its original meaning then. I like how its one syllable, simple. It also just kind of sounds right to describe anything that deviates from the norm. I think that not talking about sex life in public has strong rational support, that's pretty much the point I was trying to make here. I also think that monogamous heterosexual marriage is very unlikely to be some arbitrary social construct. There are reasons for it, some better understood than others, a fence to be torn down to our peril.
🗨 the good old days, when manners were all-important and society dames were not on Twitter discussing their periods.
Heartfelt h/t Taki, unabashedly thoroughly anti-currentThing, and—ceding here to celebratory vibe 😇—manifestly proud of it.
💬 It's too much. It's meaningless.
Anything and everything including nothing 😏
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?
Excellent question. The argument I'm making is really only meant to apply to norms of organic origin, not those that have been established through direct coercion. I know that changes the argument substantially, but you know that's where I'm always coming from given my priors, would've made this article too long to flesh that out, because then the advocates of such ostentatious displays could retort that norms around sexual behavior have been established by coercion. I think that is clearly not the case, but then it becomes more of a research question where you're needing to look at sociological data and common norms related to sexual behavior around the world that are stable independent of culture. I think I would ultimately win that argument, but with the sciences completely captured by egalitarian ideologues that have let their biases and overarching social objectives supersede their teleological mandate to search for truth, especially in the social sciences, I'm sure you could find low quality scientific literature taking the other side.
I like the idea of social progress, and would call myself a progressive if the word wasn't hijacked by ideologues with an unconstrained vision who target the superficial perception of social progress over what I would call *real* social progress. To me, the only real social progress is evolving away from norms established by coercion towards norms established by voluntary/cooperative interaction along with the behaviors that inhibit the former and facilitate the latter. These will be norms embedded within nature, which is why true humility is so critical. If we don't understand ourselves as we are, we can't know what limits we truly face in an earnest quest for real social progress. Such norms are the only way to constrain the behavior of psychopaths who, absent the ability to empathize, will always lean more towards coercion if given the opportunity, which is what political ponerology is all about in my estimation.
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
Yes, it is an op, I'm essentially trying to make it clear that these ostentatious displays don't have a moral or rational justification given the purported purposes (e.g. love, dignity, respect, you know, liberal stuff). Regarding militia, you could argue its been defunct since Presser v. Illionois. In a strange twist of fate this decision is probably one of the main motivating factors behind the socialist left adopting the long march strategy in the first place. This is why you can't violate your principles, nature has creative ways of punishing such indiscretion even if it takes over 100 years.
That reference Presser v. Illinois et al was a bit convoluted and still is even for my mind ~
The end of the militia I was referring to was in the last decade when people realized it was a farce put on by the Police, combined with Trump faith & hopey changey.
If its at the point of the people forming militias the courts have either done their worst (Dred Scott) or failed (USA now).
You see the resort to war means laws have failed.
Silent Enim Leges Intra Armas.
The laws are silent in the midst of arms. As you will likely discover, the trained will be fighting soon until dead or disabled (you’re trained, Sir). Speaking of which if it gets to soldiers then talk, laws, court decisions (🤣) are past. The faster you ditch the laws the farther you are from being dead in a ditch, the reverse is also true. If Honorable First Principles are still needed;
The opponents of the Constitution have usurped, undermined, certainly suspended in fact Constitutional government and many and any other law that impedes them, we are either Free of our dead mistress the Dead Republic and our oaths abrogated by counter party treachery...and we owe them nothing...
....or if one insists on animating her corpse.... well then the Republic is seized by traitors and enemies and our duty is clear.
Which principle do you prefer first as first principle? Shall it be our Principal Dead Mistress and we are free , except perhaps for revenge?
Or our Principal duty to free her of her obscene captors?
Do we need swords or lawyers?
A sword comes to the point, a gun means what it says, lawyers on the other hand are taught in school that contract law means writing an Iron clad contract as half the lesson and the other half shredding any contract. I’ll observe that we have many lawyers in America but not one soldier since Ashli Babbitt. Perhaps it’s fitting the Republics last dead soldier was a woman, and we let our Dead Mistress the Republic be buried with Babbitt.
For I too can bandy words and band them as Iron , or twist free us all free as Brigands upon the earth... for words are as flexible as my silken tongue and Rhetoric trained mind.
None of this will mean anything if you live and gaze upon corpses you made- or if you are made a corpse. Either way words ended.
Cheers and God Bless, Amen.
Narrative determines legitimacy, and legitimacy impacts numbers and will. This is probably worth writing a dedicated article about.
I don’t see they have any principles and our principal principles are excuses, whose maximum effective range is infinite until revealed to be ZERO
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.
Thanks for the feedback! I modified.
I like your revised phrasing.
🗨 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.
brownstone.org/articles/stakeholder-capitalism-is-an-oxymoron
--
PS Looks like the linguistic life could use a tad of timely queering, aka mind your caps: priDEMONth 😁
I like this explanation. I've yet to be convinced that sanctified coercion is socially necessary. I think once it is reached for as a tool, you've essentially admitted that you're a failure (at being a proper liberal anyway).
I think the biggest challenge we face is that these problems and category errors are being deliberately exploited. The fact that people have a hard time wrapping their head around the functional implications of 'public-private partnerships' a la WEF is a problem for those hoping for non-tyrannical outcomes in electoral politics.
As for changing the caps, I leave that sort of thing to my neanda Daniel!
neanda 🤔
https://aghostinthemachine.substack.com/p/identity-politics-for-white-people
But it’s good they don’t heed your advice, or they might become more accepted than they already are.
But if they did heed the advice, they would become more worthy of acceptance given the constraints imposed upon us by nature.
In our politics acceptance , acquiescence, silence is not enough, you must shriek your compliance and howl for the blood of the infidel...
there’s a lot of money in it too!