Friday, January 27, 2017

Why is America divided?

The answer is obvious.

We're divided because some of us think that abortion is murder while others think that it is a fundamental right. We're divided because some think that only boys have penises while others denounce such a view as vile transphobic bigotry. We're divided because some think that police officers are a threat to the commonweal while others think police officers are the only thing between us and anarchy in the streets. We're divided because some think we need a bigger welfare state while others insist that any welfare state is a road to serfdom. We're divided because some think America is an imperialistic bully while others think that it is America's divine duty to be the World's Police Man. We're divided because some think President Trump is a dangerous psychopath while others look to him as America's Saviour. And on and on and on and on and on.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Rabid and Dangerous Lunacy

One more time, folks, and, perhaps, this time I shall be clear enough that even idiots will understand, but I would not hold my breath.

Okay, the transgenderist's underlying claim is that there is no normal body for a man and a woman.  This must be the claim, otherwise the transgenderist cannot claim that some 'women' have penises and some 'men' vaginas.  And, so, the transgenderist argues that the existence of intersex people, even though they constitute an extremely tiny percentage of the general population, shows that male and female physiological normality is a fiction, a superstition, a Right-Wing Christian belief, which only inbred Bible-Thumpers confess.

Implicit in this argument is the notion that an exception to a stated norm proves that it is not the norm, and this notion is just complete and utter madness. For if the existence of intersex people prohibits us from talking about the normality of male and female bodies, then by that very same logic we can't say that it's normal to have legs because congenitally legless people exist. We can't say that it is normal to be free from cancer because people with cancer exist, and so on and so forth.

If the concept of normality must apply in each and every instance without any exception, then that concept is doomed. There can't be any normality at all, and without any normality, there cannot be any medical science at all for the very simple reason that the very purpose of medical science is to restore normal health to those who are abnormally sick and thus cannot exist if there is no such thing as normal health.

But it gets worse. Without any concept of normality, there cannot be any laws because laws exist to safeguard what is normal. But if there is no normality, there is nothing to safeguard and, thus, no need for laws. At all.

The arguments of transgenderism are very rabid and very dangerous lunacy.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Intersectional Feminism

Me: Transgenderism denies that women's bodies matter, but if the hundreds of thousands of pussy caps defiantly worn at the Women's March this past weekend show anything at all, they show that feminism is all about women's bodies. Therefore, intersectional feminism is a logical contradiction.

Intersectional Feminist: No, that's the wrong conclusion. The proper conclusion is that basic logic is just another oppressive mechanism of the heteropatriarchy. Keep your logic off my ovaries!

Me: That isn't even an off-rhyme

Intersectional Feminist: That's what a Straight White Male like you would say.  It's a transrhyme, bigot.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Hollywood, here I come!

I got a great idea for a movie:  a re-make of The Testament of Dr. Mabuse but this time with the speeches of Donald J. Trump.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Burn the Flag!

Six hours ago Ryan T. Anderson tweeted this about Madonna's recently professed thoughts of blowing up the White House: "I'm old enough to remember when rhetoric like this was irresponsible and inappropriate."

This is one big reason why I don't like being described as a "conservative". Conservatives demand respect for the state and its symbols and get all high dudgeon when this demand is not met. Fuck that shit. When the state repeatedly lies us into war, when the state lets the rich steal and imprisons the poor, when the state is run by a pussy-grabbing confidence trickster and advocate of the Nazi Policy of Collective Punishment, the state and its symbols deserve nothing but contempt. BURN THE FLAG!


Maher interviews Jane Fonda

Yeah, I just have to spit this out yet again because I'm watching Maher interview Jane Fonda (or as Republicans who think they're clever and historically erudite know her, Hanoi Jane), and the interview is really a Bitch Session about our New Dear Leader, and, yeah, that's fine with me. I HATE TRUMP. Except the very first thing they bitch about is his "pussy grabbing" comment simply because it's salacious and icky, and I thought 'ickiness' was forever ruled out as a rational objection by the "marriage equality" debate.

But, yes, okay, the "pussy grabbing" comment does show Trump to be a creepy sexual predator. I get that.

But Trump's endorsement of Collective Punishment  shows him to have really dangerous Nazi-like tendencies, and as evil as "Pussy Grabbing" may be, surely it can be nowhere nearly as drenched in horrific blood as, say, the massacre of Lez├íky. Can we get some perspective here?

Also, perhaps "Pussy Grabbing" should not alarm us as much as Trump's blunt identification of freedom with security. Just as Spinoza got rid of God by identifying Him with nature, so Trump and other authoritarians before him get rid of liberty by identifying it with the surveillance and carceral state. I am not denying that sexual predation is bad. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that, maybe, just maybe, totalitarianism is worse. Maybe, just maybe, Trump's predilection to cop feels should frighten us less than the prospect of him giving orders to SA-like goons nationwide per tweets?

And, one more thing, the same side that now is so alarmed about Trump's sordid history as a sexual predator also endorses the re-definition of 'sex' as 'gender identity', and--yes, I'll make this argument AGAIN--if 'sex' now has nothing to do with the body, how can any bodily assault be classified as 'sexual'? According to the doctrine of 'gender identity' which the anti-Trump SJWs swear by now, "Pussy Grabbing" now can be no more evil than "Arm Grabbing" or "Shoulder Tapping". Because if the pussy is something that both men and women have, it's now as asexual as an arm or a shoulder and, thus, grabbing it without consent of the owner can only constitute assault but not 'sexual' assault. Anti-Trump SJWs are idiots.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Why 'gender identity' is dangerous lunacy

'Gender identity' denies physiological normality, without which medical science is simply raving nonsense.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Friendly Reminder

Saying that the human is a biped constitutes genocide against the congenitally legless. Don't do it!

Monday, January 16, 2017

New Prayer

Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac absurditatis valle.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Why Lana Rhoades Left Porn

"I don't think I left knowing what I was going to do. I just relised [sic] how sad and depressed I was. I would go home and cry everyday, I was sick every week, I had tricamonis, yeast, and BV I've been treated three times since leaving and it's finally starting to go away. This is not good for me and no amount of money or fame is worth. It hurt me so bad, my heart, my soul, and my body. I don't want to do it anymore. being a porstar [sic] meant choosing money and fame over everything else and I'm sorry but those things really don't make you happy they just leave you chasing for more, I want a real life, waking up day after day to be driven to a porn set to have sex with a stranger is no life. I can't do it anymore.....i don't want the money, I don't want anything from anyone. I just want to be happy Lana was a very sad and depressed girl who would just smile when the camera came on. Let it be."

Moral relativism

"Oh sure, right and wrong are just oppressive social constructs when all you wanna do is get weird with someone else's wife and smoke hash all day, but when I wanna strap on a broadsword and hunt post-modernists for sport, suddenly everyone's all about moral absolutes."

--Laura Camp

A Logical Consequence of "gender identity"

In the not so distant future Singles Bars will all be thought experiments.

Huh?


Is this article poorly written, or do I need to take a remedial reading class? Check out this paragraph:

"One week after seeking an abortion, study participants who were turned away from getting the procedure had higher levels of anxiety, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction than those who got the wanted abortion. Yet, their levels of depression were similar to those who actually had the procedure. Foster noted that the similarities may stem from the depressive feelings linked with finding out you’re (unwantedly) pregnant."

The first sentence says, I think, that the women who were refused an abortion were more depressed than those who were not. But then the second sentence seems to say the opposite, that those who were refused abortions and those that got them had similar levels of depression. What am I missing here? I must be missing something. I'm an irrational bigot who still holds to the thoroughly debunked Christian tenet that only women can get pregnant.

Addendum: After reading this paragraph a few more times, it occurs to me that "depression", as used in this article linked above, must comprise more than just anxiety, low self-esteem, and low life satisfaction. These are just individual symptoms of depression, not depression itself. Thus, while those that were refused abortions and those that had abortions had similar levels of OVERALL depressions, the levels for the individual categories of anxiety, low self-esteem, and low satisfaction were higher for the former group. Fine, but for both groups to have had similar levels of OVERALL depression, then those who had abortions must have scored higher in other categories that go unmentioned in this article. Or am I missing something once again?

Friday, January 13, 2017

Another joke I'll be telling ad nauseam for the next four years


The Trump presidency confirms P. T. Barnum's status as history's only unrefuted philosopher.


Thursday, January 12, 2017

Kids today

Person: So, yeah, let's see the new Star Wars.

Person 2: Great, but we should leave now. It's Friday, there'll be a big line.

Person: Oh, right. Okay, just let me get changed, and then we can go.

Person 2: Great.

Person: Er, yeah. Just let me get changed, and I'll be ready in about two minutes.

Person 2: No problem.

Person: Um, I said that I'm going to change. That means I'm going to change clothes.

Person 2: Yeah, no problem. I understood.

Person: Well, I thought it was understood that you should wait outside while I, you know, change.

Person 2: Why should I wait outside? It's cold outside.

Person: Um, did your parents vaccinate you too early? Because you seem a bit autistic.

Person 2: No, no. I just don't want to be in the cold tonight longer than I have to.

Person: It's only the hallway!

Person 2: They don't heat the hallway. University has a bigger endowment than most developing countries, and they don't heat the hallway.

Person: You have your fucking pea coat on.

Person 2: Why so testy? And, wow, we gotta go. Are you gonna change or not?

Person: Yes, after you step outside, close the door behind you, so I can have my, you know, privacy while I, you know, UNDRESS.

Person 2: Oh, is that what this is about?

Person: Ding, ding, ding!

Person 2: Oh, my apologies. I am so very sorry. I'll wait outside. I had no idea you were such a devout Christian.

Person: Excuse me?

Person 2: You believe nudity is something shameful or that it will cause me to look at you with uncontrollable lust. That's the Supernatural Christian belief in Original Sin, committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. I would have never known, especially since I only got a B in our evolutionary biology class. You got an A. Geez, you think you know people.

Person: I'm an atheist!

Person 2: Yeah, that's what I thought.

Person: Don't you see the big poster of Sam Harris right above my bed?

Person 2: Well, yes, maybe you're just a right-wing Christian double agent sent here to spy on our safe spaces.

Person: Seriously?!

Person 2: Yeah, seriously. I really resent that you would profile me as someone who would go all psychopathically horny at the sight of you undressing merely based upon my perceived gender. You're all in favor of racial profiling, too, right?

Person: What the fuck?

Person 2: Stop and frisk?

Person: You gotta be--

Person 2: Black lives matter, you know.

Person: What does that have to do--

Person 2: Intersectionality. Everything goes together. Gender profiling is racial profiling, and racial profiling is racism. You voted for Trump, right?

Person: I DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP!

Person 2: I don't believe you.

Person: Oh Mother of, er…

Person 2: Mother of God? Come on, just say it. The closet is a lonely, stifling place. Even for a bigoted Trumpkin like you.

Person: You know what? Fine. I’ll just go like this. Okay, let’s just forget this surreal—

Person 2: You think I want to be seen now with a Trump Voter out in public?

Person: You can’t be serious.

Person 2: You’ve got be prepared to pay the price for your beliefs. Didn’t they teach you that in Sunday School?

Person: THAT’S IT! FUCK YOU. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! I DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP!! I AM NOT A RACIST!! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN RACIAL PROFILING! STOP AND FRISK WAS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND I AM A RED DIAPER BABY. I NEVER WENT TO SUNDAY SCHOOL. MY PARENTS RAISED ME TO BE A MARXIST WHO REGARDS RELIGION AS AN OPIATE THAT DISTRACTS THE MASSES FROM GAINING CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS REQUISITE FOR REVOLUTIONARY CRITICAL MASS! I HAVE NEVER BEEN NOR AM I NOW A MEMBER OF THE REACTIONARY CHRISTIAN IDEOLOGY.

Person 2: Then prove it. Get naked in front of me now!

Person: FUCK OFF, PERV!! GET OUT OF MY ROOM RIGHT THE FUCK NOW!

Person 2: (in a mocking sing song voice) You voted for Trump!

Person: GET OUT! NOW!

Person 2: (still sing song) Putin is your secret boyfriend!

Person: OUT! OUT! DAMN YOU! GET OUT OF MY ROOM NOW!

Person 2: Well, we wouldn't get tickets anyway. See ya. (exits)

Person: Oh, Jesus Christ.

Person 2: (offstage) I heard that!

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Things tenured philosophers of philosophy say

"I think it's understandable for a woman to be uncomfortable in a locker room with Alex Drummond. I also think it's understandable for a woman to be uncomfortable in an alley with a large young black man."

Monday, January 9, 2017

Bigotry Update

No one has yet been able to resolve what I claim to be a blatant contradiction at the very heart of the LGBT Alliance: The identities of the L, the G, and the B rests upon the concept of sexual orientation which assumes that biological sex is the basis of man- and womanhood. It is precisely this assumption of biological sex that the premise of the trans identities, the concept of 'gender identity', denies. Thus, to affirm the identities of the LGB, one must pull the rug out from under the identities of the T, and vice versa. Thus, one is either transphobic or homophobic.

There have been attempts to resolve this contradiction, but all have, I contend, failed. But what do I know? I am an irrational bigot. You decide how successful these attempts are.

The first attempt is a tired LGBT talking point: 'Gender identity' says what gender you are, and sexual orientation says to whom you are attracted. The concepts are separate, and if you keep them separate, you unenlightened putz who never bothered to take Gender 101, there can be no logical contradiction between the two. But this response, in my benighted eyes, fails to recognize that the concept of sexual orientation assumes precisely the very anthropology that 'gender identity' denies and thereby begs the question.

Another attempt is to say that everyone should be classified as 'pansexual'. But doesn't this just blot out the identities of the L,G, B altogether?

Yet another attempt seems to have become a talking point among the transactivists: You're attracted to whom you are attracted. Attraction becomes a cryptic, opaque tautology, rendering any generalizations about orientation impossible. This, too, blots out the identities of the Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals (not to mention the Heterosexuals as well).

The only other attempt I know of is to call the person who points out this logical contradiction a pathetic bigot who is probably a repressed, self-loathing homosexual and then threaten to beat him up. Basic logic is supposed to cower into negligibility before such intimidation, I suppose.

Basic logic needs to be queered.