If you did succeed, in the course of this discussion, in making strong, coherent arguments that moved me, I would not feel embarrassment but perhaps something more like relief.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 2:43 am Doesn't it embarrass you at all to be made a fool of here?
Yet I have been reading what you write for months now and I do not find you coherent and I do not believe that you make good arguments. I have been forced, because this is one of the main things I am interested in and try to do, to attempt to understand why your thinking is muddled, why you seem stuck in a loop, what predicates you have absorbed and converted into axioms, and then to examine the connection between how you think and the larger, general thinking errors that are common and prevalent today and which I regard as 'infections' and as psychologically pathological.
So with that said let me go right to the meat of what I believe we are talking about here or what the issue really is and why people are riled up about it. First off, it is not about some person who desires to dress up in drag. This goes on all the time and has been for decades. There are burlesque clubs where these acts are presented and in a liberal society like ours there are legitimate places for this stuff that no one has any legal right to stop.
What is it about then? It is about state actors (teachers, schools, officials) who have roles in pedagogy purveying to under-age children information and imagery that has to do with adult sexual matters. The sociological, political and philosophical question can here be asked: Why are they doing this? What is going on here? To make this analysis one has to back-track into ideological, social and political ideas that were introduced into the intellectual world in the American postwar. Mostly in the Sixties though the roots (of the ideas) have a deeper history. That deeper history can be outlined and explored.
For this reason I have referred to and submitted the work of James Lindsay as sets of ideas that can be taken into consideration. Can these be broken down into simple elements that I might include here? I must note that simplifying things into bullet-points is, in my view, often employing reductionist strategies, so I do not think any statement I would make about Lindsay's work can be presented here without you and those who read here taking the time to study his material. So abbreviations are not helpful here. But they must be made in order to open up the conversation. The issues of our day are complex indeed. In fact they are compounded in complexity and this makes it that much harder to get clear about what really is going on.
So with this said, it is my view that we have to turn out attention to an examination of Marxism, Marxist principles, and to adaptations of Marxism that were developed in the post-Sixties and employed in political and social struggles. That group or those areas of political and social concern are Marxian Feminism, Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, Disability Studies, and Fat Studies. And I will submit here an outline of what Lindsay has identified as these primary areas of Marxian activism.
Within this field is the politicization of sexuality and also the issue of child sexuality. Though I have opened up the field to a wide range of politicized concerns my core argument is as I say about state actors (in the pedagogic field) introducing adult sexual content into schools and other public spheres and, as I say, working to engineer or reengineer sexual mores through a focus on the instruction of children.
Sober individuals, in my view, will recognize that parents who become aware of both the specific issue here and the larger issues alluded to, have a legitimate right to be concerned and to resist these actions and activities. If you (and anyone) is interested in understanding what this concern is about it is very easy to research it.
However, it is vital to point out that those who hold to opposing ideas, and express their ideas, are often vilified in the public sphere. And this vilification is part of PR activities that use techniques of guilt-slinging and of course what has become known as 'cancellation'. To define the ideas that I have merely introduced here is a suspect moral activity.
All that you are saying here is that there is conflict, difference of opinion, and social struggle. To note that is not really to make any substantive argument. And as well it does not change the fact that you and I and all of us will have to engage, and can engage, with the important issues and questions if we are prepared to do so. When I say prepared I mean if we have the tools to be able to reason things through.Right. As though down through the ages historically and across the globe culturally, there have not been any number of conflicting moral narratives and political agendas in regard to all of the many, many conflicting goods that have rent the species going back to the pre-Socratics.
As a 'moral nihilist' (if you are indeed one) what you are doing, though you do it in a strange neurotic way, is asserting that you see no alternative to moral nihilism.
And it is my view that it is there that one can notice and point out the 'loop' in which you are trapped. So those parents who are concerned about the sexualization of their children, or the borderline where child abuse and 'grooming' occur do not share your view that morals do not exist or are irrelevant. For them it is very real and, indeed, in law these issues are very real indeed.
Here, you reduce a far larger issue and genuine concern down to something ridiculous. If a man in a burlesque club dresses up as a woman and dances and entertains on stage I am not concerned. And in any case my *concern* is little relevant since that person is within their rights in our liberal society to carry on as they wish.As though no matter how vast and varied the historical or cultural or personal experiences one might be confronted with, if we all just think about drag queens reasonably and intelligently we'll all think about them...like you do?
But when their activity extends to the education and the reeducation of children at a pedagogic level, and when the state and powerful private corporations get behinds a 'socially transforming' and 'engineering' strategy, the issue can be compared to the very real and very important critique of the *military-industrial complex*. If the State is in a relationship of collusion with private military industry, and the state foments war for the purposes of benefitting and enriching the private sector, this is a legitimate area of concern. Similarly, if the state and private corporations get involved in social engineering projects that deal on sexuality, gender identity, and all we see taking place today, then it stands to sound reason that this can be examined from a philosophical, political and social perspective. Therefore the work of Jennifer Bilek can be legitimately examined by thoughtful people.
[The woman in the video linked to outlines the collusion I refer to by naming the groups and entities. Her channel is Christian in orientation and though I do not think a Christian argument is needed to oppose what is outlined, I include it because there is a wide range of people in the country who are concerned about these things, and those who have a Christian foundation are definitely among them].
You keep repeating what I regard as a ridiculous reduction because you do not seem capable nor interested in examining a larger issue because (I gather) of your position within moral nihilism.Okay, in regard to your own moral and political prejudices pertaining to drag queens, how are the points I raise in the threads above not applicable to you?
Presently, I am discussing the ideas that inform our views and our perceptions. You negatively label this as being inclined to fiddle around in the intellectual clouds. But we must become capable of seeing how ideas operate (ideas have consequences) and we must become capable of parsing through them.That way those of us here can explore the extent to which you and he are on the same page or not. In terms of both means and ends.
I very briefly examined some of what Satyr has written. It is not hard to see his *areas of concern* and, if you asked me, I'd say they are valid. But he may or may not successfully develop convincing arguments for his value-assertions and the same is true for me and for anyone.You'll like him [Satyr], in my opinion, because, like you, he spends most of his time up in the intellectual contraption clouds.
But the most relevant activity for all of us? Get clear about what, in fact, is being argued; what values and principles are being defined and defended; and what the consequences of these are.
