Eunuchorn

FlippyKing

I agree about institutional authority. I wish there was some combination of Catholicism and some kind of anabaptism because of that.

I am booked solid for a few days and will read thoroughly after that. Before I even checked in I realized I should walk back the idea of "every" magic user. I stopped looking into that years ago and of course there were people were just getting into it, and people who were "wishing" for things they did not really want and did not really put their whole selves into it. But people I saw as peers or people just ahead of me and people I thought were leading the way (including a few notable authors) got fried after some point. It was across a full range of supposed expertise. One published a photo in support of a highly regarded book of his about how he had proof of interaction with an entity he worked with but it was just the way light passed through his window and curtains and it was iffy at best. True a photo is just that, but he had no big story about what it was just some thing he saw. And he was perhaps the most realisitic and "scienctific" approaching writers who did not sell it like it would get you lottery winnings or laid or anything like that, very down to earth he presents his stuff. So I can't say if he got burned doing it, I dont' recall either way if he had tragedies or not.

FlippyKing

When we think of the French Revolution and how many French were beheaded and how many French died and how many revolutions the French had after the first one, just to end up with Macron a little more than 200 years later, I think this Health Revolution will make that look very peaceful.

FlippyKing

Zappa told us when they get sick of our freedom and of us, they will take down the decorations that make it look like we're in a democracy and show us the walls of the prison we in. Or, something like that he said. I don't think even he realized how tacky the walls would look though with ill-fitting leopard print miniskirts, too much make up, and wigs.

FlippyKing

Kids in San Fransisco suffer.

Also, wait. Did Natalie Portman rap that line in the original? I mean that's kinda messed up, and the same standard should be held to her as the "drag queen" if that's the case. So, now I'm against Drag Queen Story Hour and Natalie Portman Story Hour. She's probably OK with the former, but too expensive for the latter.

FlippyKing

Gotta lock out reality over on reddit

FlippyKing

Not rambly at all! I am on board 100% with the idea that the Supreme Being being too big to understand. But, if that being must fragment itself to interact with us I'd have to think about. "Present different aspects of Itself" might be a similar idea. I have 2 other thoughts. 1, just that a teacher can have many different students, say the same thing to the whole class, & everyone picks up on different parts of it or finds different points of emphasis. When meeting 1-on-1, the teacher will say different things to each, interact the way people interact, not robotically but reacting in kind to the manner of the interaction in the moment. Thus God as Saint Theresa of Lisieux interacts is different than pretty much anyone else.

The other thought is I guess it comes down to how useful or accurate is that kind of distant monad gnosticism.,Aand: how did we get where we are, how did those who stand between us & the monad get their, what is their game in all this? I wasted a lot of life on those Qs. It was very intellectual even though we're told it's supposed to be about a kind of knowing at our core. There are so many texts & text fragments, whose contexts we know very little about. So many schools of thought creating them. Some had no sense that they were talking of anything real but just creating fiction to teach a point, or using it to tweak the noses of the religions around them. Variations of the "Sophia" fall and ill-fated offspring idea say matter is flawed and not the monad's intention. OK, then what? There’s so many ways to go after that conceptually but none resolve the dilemma we're in. But they hinge on the idea that matter is the problem. That's what makes that group different than "pagan" or naturalistic mythologies. It's polar opposite of what the German or Baltic tribes or Gauls or ancient Irish thought. I think Catholicism threads that needle: not crashing into the needle of gnosticism, not missing the eye of the needle and just being like "nature's great just don't leave the kids with Pan".

I like the idea we’re to be lights in the world that God can be partially shine through. It's an idea that came to the forefront of my thinking in the last couple of weeks. I'm surprised by how many saints have been inspired & converted by, not reading the Bible or wandering in to a church (or by as one priest I knew experienced, walking by a church & seeing a statue of Mary out front, being pulled in by her, & never let go of again), but by reading biographies of saints. Saint Theresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) was a philosophy student well on her way to a professorship when she was handed the Autobiography of St. Teresa Of Avila. She concluded "this must be true", proceeded to convert, & become a Carmelite nun. So, I think we can be ways we can interact with God-- some less perfectly than others. I would take that to be the marching orders given by Christianity & hopefully other religions.

I think your idea is basically the generic pantheism idea, no? Not the reductionist version saying Cu Cuhlainn is Achilles or Heracles (I've heard the latter but I'd lean towards the former if I had to be reductionist), but the general idea that all religious traditions point to some kind of "Aeon" or spirit which is part of some bigger thing. I think that idea is very modern (whereas the reductionist version existed before pantheism & was written of by polytheist Roman writers when talking about the Germanic tribes if not also the Gauls). But I am not sure where we draw the line between these ancient traditions dealing with supernatural entities and when they are dealing with natural forces.

A translator of Norse myths I like translates the names into their meaning. The start of one of the Eddas she has as "in the beginning was the big wave". What is interesting about that is that it could mean as simple as the massive tsunami that wiped out Doggerland, or it could mean energy of some kind (dare I say "light"? I dare not say "big bang" because the suppositions behind that idea are not as strong as we all just accepted them to be. The CMB might actually just be the oceans effecting every single time they tried to measure it. The redshift thing has anomolies that just can't be explained and ignored. Even the measurement of bent light around the sun can be explained classically. Robitaille, Arp, Dowdye). Many of the words we're given as names from those myths correlate to natural phenomena. Thor's clothing seems to have everything to with conducting electricity in her telling. It's all just so much more tangible than say God in Christianity after say Genesis where I think we can not really get what the setting for the Garden of Eden is or what it meant that we were clothed in animal skins as we were given the boot from there. Similarly we're told to accept suffering gladly even unto death. Try finding Cu Chulainn doing that. He went it to fighting tooth and nail and furiously. But then, he did everything furiously. (The women all bearing their breasts to calm him down from one of his rages had my head spinning when I first read it.) Even Ailill who is mature and calm and sort of an anchor for Mebd ends up putting an arrow into her because he could only tolerate so much. True the God of the OT is given to anger and chastisments, but it's not anthropomorphized as it is in nearly every other culture including the ones directly around and influential on it. It's also not Zeus sticking it to every woman he fancies.

As for those being then being ordered or chaotic, I don't know if we could tell the difference. I think we have to choose one and our choice will bias us to see the difference we choose. But I'm only making that up now. I don't know anyone who toyed with "magic" who didn't really regret, except for those who were so poor and suffering to being with that you'd never know if they got screwed over by bad entities or pissed off entities. In any event, if there is a team out there that "loves us" we have define love. I go with the Thomistic "to will the good of the other without regard to one's self" definition. This puts bad things that happen to us as God's permissive will and not His active will. Very different than the rules of the road I've seen in people working with spirits. I know people who have not worked with any spirits and who dabble in that world and play around with it, and they have pretty boring lives. It's almost like a fashion statement. But people I've known who really did try to change things in their lives that way, even knowing the idea that the only thing you can change is yourself, end up suffering some major loss. That does not sound chaotic to me, but ordered. But, I am biased to see it that way.

I agree that we do not seem to be able to change our sexual desires, but I also don't know if I ever thought I could learn to like eating healthy. It doesn't help that the mental health professions tell is we can change just about everything other than that. It didn't help that I just took for granted that me assuming that me wanting to chase every piece of tail that passed by me was normal. I saw only my own goals and my own purpose, and had no reason to see anything else. Like I said previously though, I can not really compare that with a same-sex attraction. But I think the big issue is that my inclination gets too much of a good-old-boys-club soft admonishment but until recently yours got so much more than just "far worse". I agree about pleasure, and we're not told to not pursue that. I'm just not even reading up on that or anything because I'm sort of trying to retrain myself towards better inclinations along all the "7 deadlies". When I feel like I made progress and all that I'll rethink where I'm at. I'm not like wrestling with all 7 or anything, just the ones I fall into I feel like I've done that got the tee shirt and it really is just ill fitting and not very stylish.

I agree we're really drawn to that nihilist pole. (well stated by your partner. Please give him my hat tip) But this was prophesied in surprising detail by a number of the "lights" I spoke of above. There are just certain aspects of the world we live in that are so pervasive that we can't really imagine what it was like long ago. I can well imagine a world were seeking a woman's ankle would turn a guy into Pepe LePew. In boot camp guys joked about the woman checking us in because she wasn't hot. Maybe it was just for conversation or a way of checking to see if we're all on the same page. 8 weeks later she was the hottest thing on earth. She wasn’t the one who had a make over. On a more serious note JP Sousa testified to congress against recorded music saying we’d ruin our ability to sing. it would ruin our "voice" in every sense of the world. Paraphrasing him today we'd say: politically socially psychologically & musically. We can't know what the world was like back then, or really what we were like back then. Native Americans could repeat the words of treaties as read to them word for word. Their minds were formed differently without the "advantage" of reading/writing. We can't imagine what that's like. Now, a generation that can't imagine not having hundreds of "friends" & what it's like to not offend ALL OF THEM if they don't post in lock step with them, flies against psychologists saying we can only have a specific & small number of people in our lives. Elsee we get overwhelmed by the number of, I guess it would be, the unique dynamics between each pairing or within each group.

We’ve come full circle to the drift towards nihilism or debauchery or the errors of nominalism, subjectivism & liberalism. I think creating a literal hell on earth is inevitable going down those paths. But I think the error before that is not taking seriously the Thy will be done thing.

FlippyKing

Thank you very much. I often have to reread my own posts a few times so I know what you mean. I know I'll need to reread yours, and grab a dictionary. You're sharing a lot of great information, but also sharing your own experience which as very down to earth and rational you're writing is, I have to think you've had to wrestle with a lot of stuff inside. Either you're very strong or you've been through a bit of hell. Gay people in a straight world often do. I had an older relative who was gay (passed away now) and he was at early gay rights marches (and anti-war rallies, as it was the 60s). I know of only one long term relationship he had, and the guy turned out to be a jerk. But he was a close member of my close family, and his being gay never really came up other than as a plain statement of fact. We were not religious, at least over my life time but that may have been different before that.

I know we're told sexuality is immutable but I'm not sure the science is all that solid on that. I've been listening to a woman who worked on California's prop 8, an extremely conservative Catholic with a PhD in something (I don't know). I find her views somewhat jarring, but had I heard her 5 years ago or even 3 years ago I would have wretched probably. But she talked about how no one on the other side would go on the record and say, let alone prove, that sexuality was an immutable characteristic. That, apparently from her description of the fight, was integral to the arguments that equated gay rights with racial equality. I can't affirm or deny any of those ideas as it's not every going to be an area of expertise of mine. I haven't really looked enough to see if the nuts and bolts of the arguments fit together.

But to talk about these matters as statistics or public policy is one thing, and to talk about it as an aspect of someone's actual life is different. I have a easier time seeing the catholic stance on abortion and birth control IN A RIGHTLY-ORDERED WORLD than this, mainly because I'm not gay and I can't really talk about the attraction. Too many gay men of the baby-boomer generation went into religious life for the wrong reasons, I think everyone on both sides of the matter can agree to that.

I know curbing my own sexual urges, something I never even thought about doing, took a bit of reflection and a lot of prayer, and a lot of failure, and still fingers crossed and hands clasped in prayer I hope to ... keep my hands to myself, no not to myself either, uhm to keep my hands where everyone can see 'em I guess. I think the idea that carrots need scrubbing or monkey's need spanking or chickens need choking is not exactly true, but I did accept it as "the science" most of my life. But I can look back on relationships I had and relationships I pursued to the detriment of the relationships that I had, and seeing too many women as objects even when I saw them as more than that and even primarily more than that. None if it was good. Honestly, I forgot more than I should have, I realized. I also know my own selfishness and ego led me to do things I should not have done in those relationships. I can abstract that dynamic and see it in play in a lot of people's lives. We're fed lies about what can be and what we "deserve" in life and what we can accomplish and all that, and all we have to do is not get bogged down in the ramifications or our own actions, and everything eventually will be fine-- that's the kind of lie I bought a couple of times and I see others tricked by it.

I know there are groups that help Gay Catholics resolve what they are dealing with, but I don't know what there deal is.

I never considered myself pagan, but I played around in a lot of different systems, considering myself "gnostic". I read a lot by people who I guess would be pan-theists but I never really accepted that one groups set of gods were the same as another, even if they had similar myths and similar attributes or planetary associations. I always felt it was too reductionist and served some other corrupting force that was really turning them into their own system and calling it "wicca" or neo-pagan or whatever. I know a little about the publishers of those books and the sort of big movers say 50 years ago and they had ... less than higher aspirations let's just say. But, the are separate from the cultures and mythologies they draw from. I could just dismiss it all as "the error of naturalism" or other such errors. "The error of gnosticism" is weird because there were so many different variations of thought that get labeled as "gnostic" that, after not accepting this idea, I've accepted the idea that the term is misused and misapplied more than it is used well. I might be "in error" but I think a lot of the gnostic ideas I held are not incompatible with "church doctrine" or scripture, but It might be a while before my reading takes me back to pull it all apart again.

I think the biggest error I see being made is a denial of the supernatural being literally super-natural but just as real. I wonder if there is a sub-natural equally out of "sight" but just as real. I think this is why Christianity was able to spread as far as it did I don't think the sword or desire for commerce was all that effective really. I think it comes down to the question: is the supernatural ordered or in chaotic? You see in the belief systems in Mesopotamia before Zoroastrianism a belief in spirits but seemingly no hierarchy and people thinking they could manipulate them to their own gain as if the other side was just happy to help-- a realm of menches maybe. The Book of Enoch is pretty revealing in that regard.

I kinda just typing away here losing focus. You gave me a lot to think about.

FlippyKing

fact-based!

FlippyKing

I have been thinking about two of the points you raise, one for a little while and another only more recently.

The Christian position on homosexuality is pretty varied and I think it is because you have two "poles" of thought among Christians: one that applies reason to the scriptures (as in Thomism) and one that takes it as God word regardless of what we see in the world around us. The latter, not being well thought out, breaks into two ends of a continuum and that is playing out in the break up of nearly all the major protestant denominations along "liberal" and so-called "conservative" lines. The Catholic church is on the precipice of such a break up for the same reasons. I think the liberal side uses disingenuously bad translations to create confusion over biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity, but I think they are all just missing a concept of what "rightly ordered" sexuality and the purposes of rights and licence and freedoms are from a Thomist perspective at least as I'm understanding them.

Virtually all sexuality and sexual expression and sexual activity today is just as sinful as homosexuality, even spite of it being labeled by previous popes as a sin that cries out to heaven. That "we" drew a line at homosexuality (not so much in the Hellenic classical world, but that was a major aspect of the conflict between the Jews and Greece/Rome) is more like a hypocrisy than a "good Christian values" kind of thing. Everything has a purpose towards which it is ordered. You build something to serve your purpose. Everything in this world view is ordered towards some end. Sexuality is ordered towards reproduction, so the proper use of it is to reproduce. That you get your rocks off while doing it is a bonus, not a bug. It entices you to reproduce. If you focus on the rocks off part and all you want to do is get your rocks off, it's become disordered in that you put your focus on something other than the purpose. If you play music, the purpose is to communicate music to others. If all you do is practice scales, and you perform essentially scale exercises (way too many "shred" guitarists either build their careers doing this or waste far too much time doing this and not making music and either go back to a day job or teach and exasperate the problem) your musicianship has become disordered. It's an easy trap to fall into, just like getting your rocks off is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3ZCZjhjguA

If that idea about what a well-ordered sexuality is the party-line for all Christians, then their position would be more consistent and probably not open to changing with the times. But not even the Catholic Church, which is supposed to defer to "the angelic doctor" Thomas Aquinas on matters where there some confusion, holds consistently to Thomism on a whole lot of matters. The Eastern Orthodox and protestants have no real love for Thomism and I don't think the Oriental Orthodox would ever even consider it as they were "schismed" off long before he was born.

But the bottom line the lusts we feel are called passions in all the "apostolic" churches (I can't speak for protestants as there is something like 30,000 regisitered "denominations" in the US alone). Passions come over us passively and they distract us from what we should be doing (like, my desire to type here). They can have good purposes, like sharing information or hoping to clarify things (which if you can clarify anything I'm saying, please do), or to share love or companionship or communion between people or fill the "god sized" hole in all of us that men and women are supposed to do for each other. Those would be virtuous pursuits. But, virtue blocked leads to vice because we have to do something and even doing nothing is doing "something" in a sense of squandering time and stewing in frustration. Some used to respond to the desire for sex by working hard and being "worthy" or attractive to the object of their own desire. It's kind of disordered maybe, if it is seen obsessively and not seen as sort like the work you have to do to seeds and to a field and to all the things you have to do to plant a successful crop protected from critters. Some respond very badly to the passions though. That's where we are.

The liberal green-lighting of debauchery and degeneracy is called the error of liberalism. It treats freedom as an end of its own. You are free ... to be free? What does that mean? You are free to find the right course of action, that's the purpose of freedom. You have licence in pursuit of that. You have rights, but what are they? Today they are synonymous with licence. Guys in ill-fitting mini-skirts claim the "right", really licence, to enter women's spaces, because the idea that right is that which you must do in pursuit of a responsibility you have is lost. Men have a responsibility to protect women. The state took over that responsibility, as men pretty much sucked at it too often anyway. But we're pretty lost now if we can't even define what a woman is because some highly-disordered men claim they are women because of some subjective criteria.

This subjectivity, and it's undermining of objectivity and realism, is the underlying source of the errors of liberalism. And beneath that is the error of nominalism.

This is an hour long talk about the errors of liberalism from a series of videos called "the crisis in the church". It is very much Catholic insider-baseball, but the "crisis" they are discussing is the exact same crisis of the modern world (though, explained better here by the spiritual offspring of Lefevre then by Rene Gueron) and the exact same crisis that has been brewing for over 500 years. Bad ideas that don't seem so bad take a little while to set you off course, but longer to set you off your destination, and a bit longer til you see the destination you're heading for is not the one you set out for. So, that's the time scale these guys are dealing in. The series is extensive but I found it riviting from episode 1 all the way to like I think 55.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSu0-q845Wg

This covers the highlights of that material in about 20 minutes, but is more church focused. The whole series this is from is worth listening to and is a much shorter listen, but the focus is different as it is more about the church in the world. Both though deal with the problems of the world, and the Catholic Church's problems reflect those worldly problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UnQgPz2b68

You can hate the catholic church and still benefit from listening to these. I think critics within the church and outside it can find common ground and see the need for unity in the world as it is.

FlippyKing

Alexander Unzicker calls BS on all of it:

https://youtu.be/0NOaYu-AxsI

FlippyKing

It's more like the WEF is an institution created to serve the same purpose and the same people the NY Times was created tp serve. There used to be a magazine called "Lies of the Times" that focused on doing deep dives and investigative jounalism debunking NY Times bs. Would you believe that in the 90s it was a far-left publication? So was "Covert Action Quarterly". The Times hasn't changed. The game has changed since they think they are closer to the end zone.

FlippyKing

I'm sorry for not being pedantically accurate about all the possibilities about why someone might not be producing the gametes their body was designed to produced when I was saying that IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MATTER AT HAND. I apologize. I was unaware you would find offense or a problem in some bit of information that was irrelevant to the matter at hand because it was after all irrelevant and not about you or about menopause or any thing other than how you can define men or women. I'll tread more cautiously so as not not offend you any more. No need to parse out if you were offended or what was or wasn't the problem because it's off topic. Just take as an article of faith that what ever you might say, I'm already saying "yes you're right."

FlippyKing

Because they are afraid of being perceived as anything think less than an active ally to the alphabet. Everything on their social media is a roll-call to make sure everyone is present and affirming what ever bs is going on without question because you can't question the subjective reality of someone you already labeled oppressed. How flamboyant cross-dressers are oppressed can't even be thought about too deeply, or it bursts the bubble. Drag performers are men dressed as women and team "t" used to find them offensive. But since now they are working in schools to normalize the sexualization of children, they are allies to the lie that there is such a thing as a transgendered child. The goal is to just make everything so fucked up that the alphabet people fit right in, it's the opposite of mental health care for them. It's more like saying the dog shit the rug, so let's throw away the toilet.

FlippyKing

I don't take you seriously, so we're even. You would rather find an ad hominem and fallaciously use that to not "take someone seriously" but I do not take you seriously because you can not be serious. In another comment you say how you're not going to read an essay someone wrote as a comment, but you don't believe the stat they cite (edited for spelling) and you claim that even if someone claims to be heterosexual you do not believe them. Elsewhere you deny reality and you think everything is subjective. So, you're going to believe what ever bullshit is convenient for you and reality be damned. I pointed out the end goal of all this gender bullshit and I said that you may not be aware of that goal, but it is the goal regardless. But if you don't believe in objective reality and think everything is subjective, you're already on board with all that. Subjectivism means everything comes down to power and not reason.

And I welcomed you back as the troll you are because I saw your previous contributions, and you're a troll. You spew bullshit, tell people you won't read and deny everything because ultimately you adhere to subjectivism. But if a troll admits they're a troll it kinda ends the game. Play on, playa.

FlippyKing

Biodynamic and Organic started around the same time, the former being centered in Germany at the start as it is Steiner's, the latter from what I read was centered in England at first. They are similar, as they evolved Biodynamic is more strict in what they can use. The weird aspects of it are acknowledged by the farmers I know who use it, but they find it works. Steiner himself did not create a dogma but told those he spoke to to test the system he proposed and change it over time. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer was pretty much directed by Steiner to apply modern scientific techniques to the study of it all. The goal was always "does this work" and not "here's the story we can tell about what's going on to make sense of why this might work" so, not making sense is just par for the course. Action at a distance still makes no "sense".

FlippyKing

Do you understand the difference between definite and indefinite? I can affirm that I am definitely male. If someone is easily affirmed as definitely female then we KNOW they are definitely not male.

But if you were to ignore that classification as ruling out them being male, and tried to classify them as male and not consider if they are female, then you would conclude that you could not define them as male. You'd say the female is not male.

But you skip past this as it is not your concern. You are not concerned with seeing clearly defined aspects of the world and creating and using definitions based on those. Instead you go to the margins and ask about people with non-functioning gonades. If their body is designed to produce small mobile gamates, they are male. If their body does or does not work properly is irrelevant. If their body is designed to produce large immoble gamates, they are female. If their body does or does not work properly is irrelevant.

What you're doing is finding red herrings or non sequiturs. You are not offering a functional system to define or classify things, you are instead pretending such can not exist, which leaves it and all things to be declared by those with the most power. For a movement that cries about being oppressed, trans activists want only their power over women to define their femaleness, they want doctors empowered by the money from surgeries to define it, and they want laws to prevent reality to matter in society. Men who identify as women are a toxic mimic of women, and trans activists are a toxic mimic of oppression. Yours are a toxic mimic of questions, citing a toxic mimic of scholarly inquiry. Your goal, be it consciously yours or not, is to eliminate male and female, parents and parental responsibilities. The goal is to replace it with laws and schools and governments and surgeries, making everyone slaves, slaves to mental illnesses, slaves to willful or trained in stupidity (as schools are doing now teaching this gender bullshit to kids), slaves to dysfunctional sexual drives, slaves to the medical professions, and the elimination of family bonds because slaves only have time to work or suffer or die. But, welcome back, troll.

FlippyKing

how has that guy not been arrested? He's pushed some of the most ridiculous and gross legislation. It's like the whole of his district is an STD clinic.

FlippyKing

But you don't have those chances. Male and female are sexes, gender is crap.

FlippyKing

I don't really feel like contributing points of data to help validate a ridiculous notion.

Gender is made up. Sex is real. I don't need a test to determine my sex. I don't need to add to the overthinking of gender either as the complete load of crap being shoved down our throats or as the place where sex-based physical differences and potential sex-based behavioral differences intersect with the societal norms generalized from those or magnified into straight-jackets from those.

FlippyKing

I think pornography is a massive factor in AGPs and the extroverted of those clearly have a need to force everyone around them to affirm their charade. For kids who want to be cool, and that is presented as normal and forward thinking, vs old fashioned and outdated, or worse when the "cool parents" are affirming it vs the squares that aren't (where gender and trans are parallel to the parents who let kids drink in the house because they would do it other wise outside) I can easily see porn influencing kids even if they aren't view it.

Also, porn use by straight boys puts them into a mindset to ... well rape the girls in their peer group for lack of a want for a better word. This is part of the hypersexualized world where people do feel free to talk about their kink and porn use and just pushed the envelop way beyond anything that existed in the past. The adolescent girl is then given a choice to escape this pornified world where they are the object by transing. So, porn impacts that even if the kid isn't watching it.

You agree the anime influence but so much of that is low-key porn even when it isn't. They make it a point to imitate camera angles and panning that accentuate the "secondary sex characteristics" that are emerging as puberty begins. It's a genre that objectifies cartoon girls even when the anime is not really about that. How many sad sad dudes publically and vocally shat on the Netflex Cowboy Bebob because the actress wore too much clothing for their tastes? They complained about it because th genre is a porn-lite genre at it's best, and I don't need to talk about it's worst.

The thing about hearing from detransitioners or any one at any given time. Their reasons for doing things in the moment of doing them should never be assumed to be rational, and so what ever reasons they state for doing what ever they do should be taken with a grain of salt. But to take reasons for having done something, transitioning or even eating a cookie, given after the fact, hours or years, is pretty useless. We always rewrite our past to make sense of the present. It's basically human nature and part of our pattern-making adaptation as a species.

Another possible hidden influence of porn in kids being roped into the trans cult is the teachers and the adults who are doing the pushing. I have no observation to offer on this, but my general idea is that you can't just look at the direct influence on some kid and how that leads them to or away from the cult but you have to see it as a potential influence, in some cases great, on the people around the kid and their environment.

FlippyKing

Interesting. I only have more questions and got very few "answers" from reading this. How different is this military-adjacent population from the civilian population, is one. Military might be a more homogeneous group socio-economical than the population at large, but how does that compare to the population that is trans in general society? Should they account for and compare the officer-adjacent population with enlisted-adjacent population?

I'm not asking for answers, MarkTwainiac, so do not feel a need to address any of those. I mean, trans is not valid. If people desist, good and I hope the damage done was minimal, and I hope they heal from that damage and the damage that led them there. If people do not desist, it doesn't mean trans is valid anymore than people who can't quit heroin really have had a need that was met by heroin.

FlippyKing

I'm considering forking over the money to see it on the daily wire, even though I think in these parts the movie's content is common knowledge (and I heard as much). I guess that book guided Walsh or the daily wire people behind it. Nice that they could get a chance to promote their book on the coattails of the movie.

FlippyKing

GET.THE.FUCK.OFF.TWITTER.THE.TRANNY.FREAKS.RUNNING.IT.GET.OFF.TOO.MUCH.DOING.THIS.TO.PEOPLE.AND.IT'S.A.HELL.HOLE.FULL.OF.BOTS.

Seriously, Rowling would lose NOTHING if she left twitter, and everyone who thinks they are fighting for reality against tweeps are just silly. It's all bots and trolls and fake journalists. Move to other better platforms. All the people accused of being "right-wing" and phobic are afraid to go to other platforms populated by other people accused of being "right-wing" and phobic. The "right-wing" in the 90s wanted to go back to the fifties, but the "right-wing" today seems to just want to go back to the 90s, so here's what everyone's missing out on by staying twitter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF_oW1KxdzA

I'll take that any day of the week.

FlippyKing

at the end though: trans is not innate, it's bullshit. It's way past time people stop saying otherwise.

FlippyKing

interesting the url has "cancel" but the headline has "'un-cancel'"

FlippyKing