a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, why should I care that some people want to have sex without creating a baby sometimes?

This is not what I said. And no, you should not care about what I did not say but which you have said.

And I suspect you are deliberately reducing what I have said to points that you can argue against. I asked you if you operate in good faith which means that I am asking you to operate in good faith. Rephrasing what someone says is bad-faith.

If in general, as a result of the sexual revolution, men do not make commitments to women and to family -- that is definitely an issue. Can you see, can you conceive, why it is an issue? If people, generally, begin to live solo existences, again as a result of the sexual revolution and its ethics, the effect on society is real, tangible and explicable. If large percentages of women do not have successful long-term relationships, and if men do not have the same, and if that is a large and general trend, it should be obvious that it is an issue. I grant you that some may assign different values to the outcome. But it is an issue and a concerning one sociologically.

Can you see that?

I already specified, in a general sense, what the area of my concern is. In the longer post I submitted to you. That took probably over an hour. Work with what was given. If you are interested in why sexual activity, separated from the reproductive outcome, is debilitating to society generally -- that is if you are interested in that perspective -- you will have to be interested enough to examine the question independent of me. I would do the same and I do the same when I encounter opinions and ideas that are foreign to me.

I made substantial allusions. If in your view there is no issue even to be examined I can accept that. But I am not interested in carrying the burden of a) being interrogated by you, and b) having to convince you.

[Flannel Jesus]

If in general, as a result of the sexual revolution, men do not make commitments to women and to family -- that is definitely an issue. Can you see, can you conceive, why it is an issue? If people, generally, begin to live solo existences, again as a result of the sexual revolution and its ethics, the effect on society is real, tangible and explicable. If large percentages of women do not have successful long-term relationships, and if men do not have the same, and if that is a large and general trend, it should be obvious that it is an issue. I grant you that some may assign different values to the outcome. But it is an issue and a concerning one sociologically.

Can you see that?

I already specified, in a general sense, what the area of my concern is.

Now you're finally being specific! Fantastic!

Specified in a general sense the area of your concern is not the same thing as being specific. "I'm concerned if we let Christianity in schools, we're going to have free speech problems". I've specified the "general area of my concern", but I haven't actually been specific have I? What specifically is supposed to be the casual relationship between Christianity in schools and free speech issues? What specific free speech issues? Talking about the general area of concern is NOT specific. General and specific are not the same thing. They're borderline antonyms.

Your concerns as far as I can tell are nonsensical. I have no reason to think that accepting homosexuality - which, no matter how accepted it is, will always be a minority, which is totally fine - will have any casual affect whatsoever to make babies stop being born, or to make heterosexual relationships less committed. You certainly haven't given any compelling reasons. You've just whined about how unfairly I've been treating you because I'm demanding more specificity than a "general area of concern". You've become so defensive that you've missed opportunities to express yourself clearly.

I made substantial allusions

Allusions aren't substantial. They aren't specific. It's like you're asking me to figure out a riddle in order to understand your position, instead of just telling me your position. "Be specific" means "tell me your position", not "give me a fucking riddle".

[Alexis Jacobi]

You would do well to reread what I have written. As it is you are reading badly, and I suspect intentionally badly. It is very very common on forums like this, and where difficult and contentious subjects arise -- as they certainly are arising in our conflicted present.

You've just whined about how unfairly I've been treating you because I'm demanding more specificity than a "general area of concern". You've become so defensive that you've missed opportunities to express yourself clearly.

I would say that this is actually where you stood prior to any supposed engagement (with my thoughts and concerns). Again, that is entirely typical on this forum (endless, meaningless, vain bickering) but it is also common in the public sphere: when the will is set against hearing ideas or views that are contrary to one's 'cherished views'.

I would never have said you 'treated me unfairly', nor have I whined, nor is it defensiveness but rather a desire not to waste time.

I have no reason to think that accepting homosexuality - which, no matter how accepted it is, will always be a minority, which is totally fine - will have any casual affect whatsoever to make babies stop being born, or to make heterosexual relationships less committed.

Again, this is an example of deliberate not-hearing; then reduction, then rephrasing. I said things, that is true, but I did not say what you *heard*. If you want to understand what I say -- you don't of course -- you will have to perform a better reading. But I know, and I think you know that you won't, and you had no intention to from the start.

That's why I referred to 'game'.

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay, thanks for your time. If you don't have any desire to clarify your position beyond allusions and general areas of concern, then there's nothing more for me to see in your position.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your concerns as far as I can tell are nonsensical. I have no reason to think that accepting homosexuality - which, no matter how accepted it is, will always be a minority, which is totally fine - will have any casual affect whatsoever to make babies stop being born, or to make heterosexual relationships less committed. You certainly haven't given any compelling reasons. You've just whined about how unfairly I've been treating you because I'm demanding more specificity than a "general area of concern". You've become so defensive that you've missed opportunities to express yourself clearly.

He accidentally neglected to mention one of the key ingredients out of his cake of concern. It's that he thinks some races and/or religions do a better job of supressing all that homosexuality, whereas the white Christian world is beset with elevated rates of deviancy and as a byproduct will be outcompeted. This is probably all something to do with Soros or some other totally coincidetally Jewish person. Either way, this is the extra element that converts the issue from a minor culture wars side issue to some critical matter of white survival.

[Flannel Jesus]

Your concerns as far as I can tell are nonsensical. I have no reason to think that accepting homosexuality - which, no matter how accepted it is, will always be a minority, which is totally fine - will have any casual affect whatsoever to make babies stop being born, or to make heterosexual relationships less committed. You certainly haven't given any compelling reasons. You've just whined about how unfairly I've been treating you because I'm demanding more specificity than a "general area of concern". You've become so defensive that you've missed opportunities to express yourself clearly.

He accidentally neglected to mention one of the key ingredients out of his cake of concern. It's that he thinks some races and/or religions do a better job of supressing all that homosexuality, whereas the white Christian world is beset with elevated rates of deviancy and as a byproduct will be outcompeted. This is probably all something to do with Soros or some other totally coincidetally Jewish person. Either way, this is the extra element that converts the issue from a minor culture wars side issue to some critical matter of white survival.

If he explicitly said, "I'm worried that homosexuality being fully accepted will result in the white race going extinct", hey, at least that's better than what actually did happen in the conversation. Instead, he "alluded" to the issues he was concerned with, and then got upset that I didn't interpret his allusions in the way he intended.

I don't think my interpretation of the concerns I thought he was saying was off base or dishonest. Was he not bringing up the "promotion of recreational non reproductive sex" to say that he's worried about dropping birth rates? Was he not bringing up the family issues to suggest that accepting homosexuality will result in less committed heterosexual relationships? I don't feel like I had to stretch his words to come up with those interpretations, I didn't feel dishonest or uncharitable while writing that.

But that's the trouble with only alluding to your position, instead of just saying it explicitly. If I have to guess why you're scared of accepting gay people, you have to accept that I might guess wrong. That's the risk you run. I was asking him to be specific for his own benefit as much as mine. I don't like guessing, I'm bad at reading minds.

[FlashDangerpants]

If he explicitly said, "I'm worried that homosexuality being fully accepted will result in the white race going extinct", hey, at least that's better than what actually did happen in the conversation. Instead, he "alluded" to the issues he was concerned with, and then got upset that I didn't interpret his allusions in the way he intended.

The only reason we keep having threads about trannies on this site is because it can be used as a wedge issue. Immanuel Can and Walker know that they can get some old fashioned folks like IWP and Seeds all hot and bothered, and with that they can try and move the Overton Window somewhat to the right, and then go for the real prize which is gay marriage. It's a clumsy and stupid tactic, but it is how they think "THE LEFT" works, and as such theyt believe it's how gay marriage got onto the statute books in the first place, thus they think a similar move in reverse is going to work for them.

But Jacobi is an even better dog whistler than Can. He is never able to say what he really means nor reveal his true intentions in the open as it leads to insta-bans everywhere except 4chan and stormfront. So what he wants is to casually allude to his goals just enough for nasty people like me to call him a nazi, so that he can say how unfair it all is and publicly bathe in umbrage. From there he has common ground with other people who fall foul of us dirty libtards (Henry and Gary) and he can recommend secret back channels of communication away from all the public accusations, which is how he does his recruiting.

Saying anything he means in the way he means it is seldom going to be part of his game plan, the point of dog whistles is to do your thing out in the open while normal people can't even tell what you are up to.

[seeds]

seed, you still haven't answer my question,
what exactly is the difference between dressing up for
Halloween and a drag queen? I will answer your question,
once you answer mine...

Kropotkin

Before I answer, let me make something perfectly clear...

I have absolutely nothing against anyone with homosexual proclivities. In fact, two separate gay men have played crucial roles in my self-publishing of two books. One of them (a summa cum laude graduate from the University of Michigan art school) created several illustrations for my first book in the 1980s (and, unfortunately, died of AIDS in the 90s),...

...and the second one (a computer whiz, and wonderful person), not only saved my bacon more than once when the computer I was using for my second book crashed, but also is the uploader and manager of my website - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/

So, this has nothing to do with any sort of negative attitude toward homosexuality.

Now, to answer your question, I highly doubt that the guy wearing this Chewbacca Halloween costume...



...is in any way purposely implying that that Halloween costume is a reflection of his inner "Wookiee-ness," no more than the Dracula costume he wore last Halloween was a reflection of his inner "vampire-ness."

However, the same cannot be said about the guy wearing this costume...



Therefore, at least from a psychological perspective, there is a vast difference between the two situations.

Now, how about you tell me why pre-pubescent (4, 5, 6-year-old) children, who have no true apprehension of sexual roles or gender issues, need to be purposely subjected to the strange fetishes of a bunch of old men?
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

But Jacobi is an even better dog whistler than Can. He is never able to say what he really means nor reveal his true intentions in the open as it leads to insta-bans everywhere except 4chan and stormfront.

As per usual for you this is part hallucination and part projection. It is the projection aspect that you are blocked from seeing (as is usually the case with projection).

You imagine dog-whistles, you invent dog-whistles, and the core of what you try to apply to me — this is common — is Nazism. What else does 4chan and StormFront symbolize for you?

It always reduces to the same: an accusation that is absolute and incontrovertible. You see yourselves as inhabiting such a ‘righteous’ platform in an eternal, indeed a metaphysical battle, against ontological malevolence.

My observation is that you, VegiTaxi, I think Flannel Jesus, and then other fellow (I am one my phone and can’t check his name) actually believe this! It is an hallucination that has become real for you. You are warriors of a strange hybrid hyper-liberalism in a raging battle against “Nazis” in your minds, but you yourselves begin to act in those closed, negative ways. You embody what you project out of your own selves.

My effort, then, is only to point this out. It is that which should be talked about. The focus shifts then to you.

[Sculptor]

But Jacobi is an even better dog whistler than Can. He is never able to say what he really means nor reveal his true intentions in the open as it leads to insta-bans everywhere except 4chan and stormfront.

As per usual for you this is part hallucination and part projection. It is the projection aspect that you are blocked from seeing (as is usually the case with projection).

You imagine dog-whistles, you invent dog-whistles, and the core of what you try to apply to me — this is common — is Nazism. What else does 4chan and StormFront symbolize for you?

It always reduces to the same: an accusation that is absolute and incontrovertible. You see yourselves as inhabiting such a ‘righteous’ platform in an eternal, indeed a metaphysical battle, against ontological malevolence.

My observation is that you, VegiTaxi, I think Flannel Jesus, and then other fellow (I am one my phone and can’t check his name) actually believe this! It is an hallucination that has become real for you. You are warriors of a strange hybrid hyper-liberalism in a raging battle against “Nazis” in your minds, but you yourselves begin to act in those closed, negative ways. You embody what you project out of your own selves.

My effort, then, is only to point this out. It is that which should be talked about. The focus shifts then to you.

Projection?? FUCKING HELL.
Man, it's you doing that, pure fucking invention.
This is possibly the most weird unhinged and self deceptive bunch of bollock I have read on a long time.
What the fuck kind of screwed up mental space do you inhabit?
When I see shit like this I image a sad lonely fuck in a basement living with his aged mother, hiding from her constant nagging "are you still on that machine, boy?"
"Yes mummy"
"Come up stairs and make my dinner!"

[Sculptor]

Now, how about you tell me why pre-pubescent (4, 5, 6-year-old) children, who have no true apprehension of sexual roles or gender issues, need to be purposely subjected to the strange fetishes of a bunch of old men?
_______

Why the fuck not?
So fucking what?

You can't catch it like the FLU.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Now, how about you tell me why pre-pubescent (4, 5, 6-year-old) children, who have no true apprehension of sexual roles or gender issues, need to be purposely subjected to the strange fetishes of a bunch of old men?
_______

Why the fuck not?
So fucking what?

You can't catch it like the FLU.

Because it's known as brainwashing you fucking moron. Children aren't your political tools, Nazi.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is possibly the most weird unhinged and self deceptive bunch of bollock I have read on a long time.

Very well. Can you explain why it (my assertions) are as you describe them? Say in calm, articulate prose?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nazi….

Its curious: in Clown World everyone has their 15 minutes of fame in a Nazi uniform.

Love the boots with their high polish! But I’m a sucker for Hugo Boss style!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't think my interpretation of the concerns I thought he was saying was off base or dishonest. Was he not bringing up the "promotion of recreational non reproductive sex" to say that he's worried about dropping birth rates? Was he not bringing up the family issues to suggest that accepting homosexuality will result in less committed heterosexual relationships? I don't feel like I had to stretch his words to come up with those interpretations, I didn't feel dishonest or uncharitable while writing that.

But that's the trouble with only alluding to your position, instead of just saying it explicitly. If I have to guess why you're scared of accepting gay people, you have to accept that I might guess wrong. That's the risk you run. I was asking him to be specific for his own benefit as much as mine. I don't like guessing, I'm bad at reading minds.

You’ve just stated what you began and begin with. These are elaborated self -justifications.

Surely you are not off-base when you describe the base from which you operate. Dishonest? No, that’s not the right term. Your position is far more closed than you are aware of. I would not say you are dishonest but rather recalcitrant. You do not wish to hear (entertain) any ideas that seem unethically counter to those you’re invested in.

My view is that when people operate in closed mental spaces there is no way they will hear what another is actually saying. Is it dishonest to twist statements others make and essentially to rewrite them? I prefer the term underhanded.

When you call for declarations of “explicit positions” what you seem to ask for is for such statements as you make when you reformulate what I have said into what wish me to have said. I have a range of ideas that I entertain and work with intellectually. But I do not have a social program to be installed.

Most of “you” however (an unfortunate generalization) are activists more than philosophers.