a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[phyllo]

Some additional notes. The term 'shrill' when combined with 'emotional' and 'emotionalism' (in reference to a seemingly pathological (psychologically unhealthy) movement which is sweeping the nation (in America at least) is best understood when examining an example of it.

See here. You will notice that when this slightly emotionally deranged girl lets loose with her shrill screaming that the one she is opposing (I would call it a form of attack) can't do much else but go silent and remain silent. One senses that something is not right. The reaction is out of all proportion. Ironically, this had to do with Halloween costumes! That is, the 'wrong' Halloween costumes.

Shrillness and emotionalism are noted, of course, in the tantrums of children. It is a tool, is it not, used in attempts for the child to get his way. And the use of it is a peculiar employment of power. It seems to me that this issue of power, and also the use of a crowd dynamic, is very nicely illustrated in this embarrassing video. One has to ask the question What is going on here? and it becomes necessary to answer it with sociological, cultural, political but also psychological analysis.

(The other example I have examined is the really really strange phenomena that took place at Evergreen College among the student mob in their opposition to Brett Weinstein.)

I submit these two examples to illustrate my point that the traditional Left with its generally clearly enunciated values has been supplanted by something else which is quite hard to define. I mean, it is hard to define it carefully, fairly and, say, without unnecessary exaggeration. When centrist Leftists and centrist Progressives see what is going on in such shrill and emotional environments, and indeed when that environment turns on them in pack formation, it causes them to think deeply about their political and social affiliations. Take Brett Weinstein as an example. Completely dedicated to Progressive politics and a man who *walked the talk* was forced, as a result of witnessing these pathological displays, to reassess his entire relationship to the (so-called) "woke movement".

And this process of reassessment, and of having to think through what one is aligned with, what one supports and what one does not support, is on-going today among many people with a formerly committed relationship to 'progressive values'.

How come Kropotkin has to come up with real conservatives being "shrill and emotional" as requested here:

Describe to me, or better show me, who on the political right and what genuinely conservative figures are shrill and emotional. What names come to mind?

(I do not believe in strict divisions between a Left and a Right myself. It’s not the right framing for good analysis).

I might agree with you if you present some examples. But note that when I speak of conservative ideas and ideals I am thinking of actual intellectual’s and not TV personalities.

... while you only show college students?

[phyllo]

Now, let's take what Robert Foster said:

"Some of y'all still want to try and find political compromise with those that want to groom our school aged children and pretend men are women, etc. I think they need to be lined up against wall before a firing squad to be sent to an early judgment."

What he has made a strong statement about is directed to those who *groom* children. Grooming (of children) for sexual abuse is a real thing. It goes on a lot. And it is pretty hideous when manifest in prostitution rings. Perhaps you are of a different opinion but I think most recognize the grooming of children as 'abuse'.

Now, if an average parent discovered that someone was grooming their child I can assure you their reaction would be justifiable harsh. In former times the pervert would get shot and very few questions would be asked.

But today the 'grooming' of children takes a peculiar form. Taking children to sexually explicit shows, or allowing them to dress up in drag and to receive dollar bills from men (homosexuals I gather) in the bar or club, is presented as 'harmless' or anything else but what it actually is: sexual manipulation and grooming.

So I do not find it hard to empathize with the man's sentiments if grooming is defined as I have defined it. And I have defined it fairly, accurately, and without resorting to shrilly expressed emotionalism. The adamancy of the man's opinions is one thing. It is distinct I think from the shrill emotionalism I describe.

If that is what he means by "grooming", then that in itself is shrill and emotional. It's a wacky meaning.
If he means something innocuous by "grooming", then his solution is shrill and emotional.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How come Kropotkin has to come up with real conservatives being "shrill and emotional" as requested here:

AJ: Describe to me, or better show me, who on the political right and what genuinely conservative figures are shrill and emotional. What names come to mind?

(I do not believe in strict divisions between a Left and a Right myself. It’s not the right framing for good analysis).

I might agree with you if you present some examples. But note that when I speak of conservative ideas and ideals I am thinking of actual intellectual’s and not TV personalities.

... while you only show college students?

Perhaps because he brought it up? He made the assertion that Conservatives are also shrill & emotional.

If you are asking me for some examples of (what I define as) shrillness and emotionalism among adults (i.e. not college-age kids who can be forgiven a great deal simply because they are as young and inexperienced as they are) I could set to work on finding some videos.

But the real point (in any case the area that interests me) is not only the shrill emotionalism of the American Progressive Left (though I think it real) but rather that so many conversations and the possibility of conversing are rendered impossible because of what I generally describe as 'derangement'.

I would link sexual excess and the craziness that is becoming manifest in social life with a general derangement. But what do I mean by derangement? It is a complex question. I could cite Platonic political theory, which is also an anthropology, and talk about *balanced man*. If I went in that direction of developing the Platonic idea I would also have to cover the ground of the European Medieval conceptions of man, i.e. an anthropology. Therefore the question is Who in a properly organized society is balanced, sane, sober and capable of holding up the pillars of society and also of civilization? If I were to answer that question in traditional terms I would have to speak of a person who had been raised up and educated in our own Occidental (and Liberal) traditions. Sober, alert, of balanced mind & outlook, capable of seeing straight, upright, ethically inclined, etc.

So for this reason (in my case in any case) when I examine these strange social rehearsals that can be described through an emblematic portrayal (Drag Queen Story Time is an encapsulation, no?), I notice people captured certainly be sexual derangement and exhibitionism, but I sense too that if I were to inquire of them on other levels I'd find that they have *deranged ideas* and perhaps also an *incapacity to think straight*. What model am I referring to? The Platonic model of a rationally oriented and grounded man certainly.

To speak of derangement, of becoming *unhinged*, and of pathological shrillness in combination with a psychologically unstable emotionalism -- I think this is really what needs to be spoken about.

*Our world* is (literally?) careening out of control. The political body and the economic body are fracturing and there, alongside, the individual is also manifesting fracturation and certain forms of melt-down.

Is it bad analysis to see all of this holistically?

[Alexis Jacobi]

If that is what he means by "grooming", then that in itself is shrill and emotional. It's a wacky meaning. If he means something innocuous by "grooming", then his solution is shrill and emotional.

Why do you say it is a wacky meaning?

The term 'grooming' has come to be broadly applied.

So for example it has been applied to teachers, who may be sexually progressive, who present information to young students (be it in kindergarten or in any of the early grades) about 'sexual identity', about 'homosexuality', and then school libraries (another example) which stock books of explicitly sexual themes for very young children -- these have been described negatively as 'child grooming'.

Here is just one site offering a definition that comes up at the top of a Google search.

To get clear about what we are talking about here we have to have some commonsense definitions. Is the introduction of sexually explicit themes and reading material in preschool and grade school a form of 'grooming'? If that term is too strong what other term should replace it?

[iambiguous]

Next up:

When dealing with hyper- and ultra-conservativism one has to spend some time speaking about it in itself. You have to explain the hystericism of a Alexis Jacobi as a first effort. One has to speak to intellectual and ideological derangement.

And it might pertain to any moral or political issue: human sexuality, race, gender, immigration policy, guns, abortion.

On the other hand, for some here, only when those who are "one of them" -- either hyper- and ultra-liberal or hyper- and ultra-conservative -- does the part about ideological derangement come into play.

Unless, of course, in bringing this all back around to, say, dasein, I'm just "derailing" another thread.

Nice one, Iambiguous. You agree then that derangement is possible.

No, my argument here about things like human sexuality, drag queens, gender roles, race, etc., revolves around the assumption that there are objectivists among us who attack those who do not share their own moral and political prejudices. Others are deranged [ideologically or otherwise] if they refuse to become "one of us".

The Satyr Syndrome I call it.

Also, that our own individual value judgments here are rooted existentially/subjectively/subjunctively in dasein...out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically, culturally and personally.

That true derangement revolves more around an actual mental affliction such that how one construes reality has little or nothing to do with objective reality itself. Think schizophrenia.

The caveat: there is nothing hysterical in anything I write.

No, in a cool, calm and collected manner, you really do believe that your own value judgments here reflect the most rational assessment. But, from my own frame of mind, your arguments are just another example of what I call the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life regarding drag queens

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective regarding drag queens expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way regarding drag queens; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy regarding drag queens with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet posters; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth regarding drag queens with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own regarding drag queens as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom regarding drag queens has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all.

Some conservative ideologues do seem inclined to excesses. But who becoes hysterical in your view? the American left and the “Progressive Left” seem genuinely inclined to shrill, emotionalized reaction.

On the other hand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... r-shooter/
"Nashville shooting exploited by right to escalate anti-trans rhetoric" Washington Post headline

Or [as expected] Satyr and his right-wing Nazi ilk over at KT. The shooter becoming one of their "Desperate Degenerates".

[iambiguous]

Just for the record...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/arts ... -dead.html

Walter Cole, Who Dazzled as Darcelle, the World’s Oldest Drag Performer, Dies at 92
He turned a run-down tavern into a drag cabaret that became a hub and a fund-raising powerhouse for the L.G.B.T.Q. community as well as a beloved Portland, Ore., institution. New York Times

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, in a cool, calm and collected manner, you really do believe that your own value judgments here reflect the most rational assessment.

If I did think that I wouldn’t be that rational, would I?

Similarly to you I work within the established frames. One side and their values, and the other side theirs — and civil strife looms. True though that I share the conviction that public schools should not get involved in sexual indoctrination. So I do have value commitments.

I would say that my approach to discussing issues is (more) rational. Therefore more productive. I really am wonderful.

[iambiguous]

ME:

Next up:

When dealing with hyper- and ultra-conservativism one has to spend some time speaking about it in itself. You have to explain the hystericism of a Alexis Jacobi as a first effort. One has to speak to intellectual and ideological derangement.

And it might pertain to any moral or political issue: human sexuality, race, gender, immigration policy, guns, abortion.

On the other hand, for some here, only when those who are "one of them" -- either hyper- and ultra-liberal or hyper- and ultra-conservative -- does the part about ideological derangement come into play.

Unless, of course, in bringing this all back around to, say, dasein, I'm just "derailing" another thread.

Nice one, Iambiguous. You agree then that derangement is possible.

No, my argument here about things like human sexuality, drag queens, gender roles, race, etc., revolves around the assumption that there are objectivists among us who attack those who do not share their own moral and political prejudices. Others are deranged [ideologically or otherwise] if they refuse to become "one of us".

The Satyr Syndrome I call it.

Also, that our own individual value judgments here are rooted existentially/subjectively/subjunctively in dasein...out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically, culturally and personally.

That true derangement revolves more around an actual mental affliction such that how one construes reality has little or nothing to do with objective reality itself. Think schizophrenia.

The caveat: there is nothing hysterical in anything I write.

No, in a cool, calm and collected manner, you really do believe that your own value judgments here reflect the most rational assessment. But, from my own frame of mind, your arguments are just another example of what I call the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life regarding drag queens

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective regarding drag queens expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way regarding drag queens; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy regarding drag queens with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet posters; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth regarding drag queens with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own regarding drag queens as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom regarding drag queens has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all.

Some conservative ideologues do seem inclined to excesses. But who becoes hysterical in your view? the American left and the “Progressive Left” seem genuinely inclined to shrill, emotionalized reaction.

On the other hand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... r-shooter/
"Nashville shooting exploited by right to escalate anti-trans rhetoric" Washington Post headline

Or [as expected] Satyr and his right-wing Nazi ilk over at KT. The shooter becoming one of their "Desperate Degenerates".

HIM:

No, in a cool, calm and collected manner, you really do believe that your own value judgments here reflect the most rational assessment.

If I did think that I wouldn’t be that rational, would I?

Similarly to you I work within the established frames. One side and their values, and the other side theirs — and civil strife looms. True though that I share the conviction that public schools should not get involved in sexual indoctrination. So I do have value commitments.

I would say that my approach to discussing issues is (more) rational. Therefore more productive. I really am wonderful.

Again, there are those like the scholarly AJ here and those like the ranting Satyr there.

But the part revolving around the "psychology of objectivism" is no less applicable in my view.

It's not what AJ believes about human sexuality so much as that it comforts and consoles him to believe it. He gets it and if you refuse to share his own dogma, you don't.

Same with those on the other end of the political spectrum.

What, in my opinion, becomes most crucial for the objectivists among us is this: that they are able to resist the arguments I make regarding moral and political value judgments being rooted existentially in dasein.

No "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy for them!

And, sure, more power to them if they are able to sustain this "one of us the good, the smart guys" frame of mind to the grave. After all, admittedly, what I wouldn't do if one of them could bring me back into the objectivist fold.

God or No God.

[Flannel Jesus]

Listen, at the end of the day, if you're tired of people violently shoving gay stuff down your throat, just ask them to be more gentle.

[Sculptor]

RIP
Lilly Savage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgp67_GqNos

A NATIONAL TREASURE as valuable as Dame Edna Everage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7623BJ6ETDU

And doing no harm on Prime Time TV.

[Sculptor]

Superstar Housewife..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac0CJn0-6tE

No wonder women like the rancid vegatable feel so inadequate

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not what AJ believes about human sexuality so much as that it comforts and consoles him to believe it. He gets it and if you refuse to share his own dogma, you don't.

That statement and all it ramifies is of course your consolation — according to your own doctrines.

Have you yet realized that you have just one essential idea and one essential post, endlessly repeatable?

Might Dasein mate with something and multiply fruitfully?

[Sculptor]

Here's another evil person tearing down the very fabric of civilisation in 1969

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXslU0H4qY

[Sculptor]

Pantomime has been part of British culture sInce adopted from the 16thC Comedia D'arte. But has deeper root giong at least as far as ancient Rome and Greek Theatre..
IT IS FOR CHILDREN.
And is most often seen at Xmas..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN6nvd3HMWo

You'll love this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlzIZcNtvME

[Sculptor]

But now we see the fucking hideous RIght wing anti-woke knuckle draggers and their Cancel Culture BULLSHIT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obB1TJCjZbk