Does gender matter?

[mickthinks]

Gender and race. It was clearly a stunning setback to the Left's narrative, when the holdout juror ended up being a black immigrant. They reeled for days over that one.

But they've found their feet now. He was male. He was conservative. Yep, we can hunt him now.

But had the holdout been something like a female, aboriginal, women's-justice activist, their loyalties to a rich, white baby-strangler might have been lessened somewhat. Maybe not. But maybe.

Here’s Manny doing what he does best: imagining a strawman of monstrous depravity, and then asking us to marvel at the enormity of his creation.

[Walker]

So that’s what that lady in this link has to sit with.
She has to sit with the straw man of Manny's creation.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9ebvWy-dcts

Maybe she has to sit with the strawman for a sec., to marvel at Manny's creation?
That doesn't sound right, unless she's a fan of PNF, and what are the odds?

Although, only the shadow knows for sure.

[RickLewis]

Gender and race. It was clearly a stunning setback to the Left's narrative, when the holdout juror ended up being a black immigrant. They reeled for days over that one.

But they've found their feet now. He was male. He was conservative. Yep, we can hunt him now.

But had the holdout been something like a female, aboriginal, women's-justice activist, their loyalties to a rich, white baby-strangler might have been lessened somewhat. Maybe not. But maybe.

Here’s Manny doing what he does best: imagining a strawman of monstrous depravity, and then asking us to marvel at the enormity of his creation.

"The world is divided into two kinds of people: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the rest." (Oscar Wilde, I think)

[Immanuel Can]

Gender and race. It was clearly a stunning setback to the Left's narrative, when the holdout juror ended up being a black immigrant. They reeled for days over that one.

But they've found their feet now. He was male. He was conservative. Yep, we can hunt him now.

But had the holdout been something like a female, aboriginal, women's-justice activist, their loyalties to a rich, white baby-strangler might have been lessened somewhat. Maybe not. But maybe.

Here’s Manny doing what he does best: imagining a strawman of monstrous depravity, and then asking us to marvel at the enormity of his creation.

"The world is divided into two kinds of people: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the rest." (Oscar Wilde, I think)

Well, Lindsay Clancy plotted to strangle her children. She plotted it. She cunningly arranged for her husband to be gone, so nobody could stop her. With her own hands, she choked the life out of three innocent children -- not "clusters of cells," but real, living, breathing, human beings she knew and should have loved.

They died slowly and horribly. If we wanted to know what those children suffered, just sit there and hold your breath for three minutes. When you wake up, consider the terror they felt, the awfulness of oxygen deprivation, while they looked into the face of the mother they loved and who should have been their most secure resource, while she strangled the life out of each of them, in turn.

One didn't stop her. Nor did two. She kept going until she saw the light of life extinguished from each of those tiny, trusting eyes that were fixed on her in horror, while she did what she did.

Then she confessed to having committed her crime. We KNOW she did it. There's no doubt. And only one man had the courage and integrity to stand on what really happened. Only one Haitian-American man had the guts to say, "No, that's not alright." And then we started to torment him, for standing up for those kids, for truth, and for justice.

So I didn't need to create any "monsters of enormous depravity". If all of that doesn't qualify, all on its own, then exactly what would?

[Walker]

In other words, the accurate imagining of what happened and the implications of the act, based on the evidence, is a far cry from creating a strawman ... as mickthinks well knows.

The empowering motive force for evil acts can be attributed to demonic possession, mental illness, or choice.
Clancy is responsible (answerable) for all of them, whether or not that's fair, whether or not one of those reasons is applicable.
What mother would choose such a monstrous act? For whatever reason, she had to do it, and neither does that excuse the act.

Perhaps the fundamental, motive force for Relativism is not philosophical understanding, but to excuse the self for monstrous actions ... or even just simple, wrong actions. This gives rise to the philosophy of ... it's only wrong if you get caught.

(Example of getting caught.)
mickthings says, "Everyone else was speeding."
Authority replies, "Yeah, but you got caught, you were last in line."

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, the accurate imagining of what happened and the implications of the act, based on the evidence, is a far cry from creating a strawman ... as mickthinks well knows.

I've long ago given up any thought of being worried about opinions from that source.

[Walker]

In other words, the accurate imagining of what happened and the implications of the act, based on the evidence, is a far cry from creating a strawman ... as mickthinks well knows.

I've long ago given up any thought of being worried about opinions from that source.

Sloughing off the muck of sissified discourse broadcasted from deliberate ignorance can be either a Sisyphusian Response, or an opportunity to practice both blunt force or precise parrying, along with an opportunity to employ some seldom vocabulary.

[Gary Childress]

Here’s Manny doing what he does best: imagining a strawman of monstrous depravity, and then asking us to marvel at the enormity of his creation.

"The world is divided into two kinds of people: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the rest." (Oscar Wilde, I think)

Well, Lindsay Clancy plotted to strangle her children. She plotted it. She cunningly arranged for her husband to be gone, so nobody could stop her. With her own hands, she choked the life out of three innocent children -- not "clusters of cells," but real, living, breathing, human beings she knew and should have loved.

They died slowly and horribly. If we wanted to know what those children suffered, just sit there and hold your breath for three minutes. When you wake up, consider the terror they felt, the awfulness of oxygen deprivation, while they looked into the face of the mother they loved and who should have been their most secure resource, while she strangled the life out of each of them, in turn.

One didn't stop her. Nor did two. She kept going until she saw the light of life extinguished from each of those tiny, trusting eyes that were fixed on her in horror, while she did what she did.

Then she confessed to having committed her crime. We KNOW she did it. There's no doubt. And only one man had the courage and integrity to stand on what really happened. Only one Haitian-American man had the guts to say, "No, that's not alright." And then we started to torment him, for standing up for those kids, for truth, and for justice.

So I didn't need to create any "monsters of enormous depravity". If all of that doesn't qualify, all on its own, then exactly what would?

I didn't take Rick's response as denying your position, only as a voice of levity from frustration with the world. When one doesn't know everything pertinent about an issue, then posting something innocuous depicting the human predicament may be a bit humorous. I mean, do you think that "The Left" is somehow responsible for allowing people to get away with murder? And if so, how does being a "leftist" force one to draw the conclusion that women with mental illness should be excused if it is true that they intentionally murdered their children?

[Immanuel Can]

...how does being a "leftist" force one to draw the conclusion that women with mental illness should be excused if it is true that they intentionally murdered their children?

It's a marvel to us all.

The Left always needs a "victim" on whose behalf they can claim "oppression." But they always seem to pick the wrong side. For example, instead of advocating for women's rights, they advocate for transmen. Instead of advocating for freedom, they advocate for Islamists. And now, instead of advocating for justice, they advocate for monsters. Evan Sayet has a speech from years ago that admirably describes why this is: as he puts it, they always opt for "the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, the ugly over the beautiful, the vulgar over the refined, the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success and, first and foremost, the evil over the good."

In the last decade or so, we have not seen his evaluation fail.

[Gary Childress]

Evan Sayet has a speech from years ago that admirably describes why this is: as he puts it, they always opt for "the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, the ugly over the beautiful, the vulgar over the refined, the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success and, first and foremost, the evil over the good."

In the last decade or so, we have not seen his evaluation fail.

That seems like the way things may work sometimes. The call for equality and fairness such as not hiring female employees based on beauty but rather on how well they can do the job, can seem as though it sometimes leads to what appears to be ugliness over beauty that way, and we often get confused by complex situations where values clash or contradict. And juries can be notorious for not thinking their way through things very well. But does anyone really want injustice, whether a "leftist" or a "rightie"?

It seems to me that there are tensions between certain values. For example, does hiring a beautiful woman to be his secretary mean the boss is discriminating based on looks if she can also do the job? Or is it fair to say that the beautiful woman got the job fair and square according to a human vision of how things should work in society? Is saying that the beautiful woman doesn't deserve the job essentially an example of discriminating against a socially positive attribute? Might a jury cave into their instinctive prejudices when giving a verdict, whether it be that the boss discriminated against ugly women or whether the jury chose to favor ugliness over beauty?

[Immanuel Can]

Evan Sayet has a speech from years ago that admirably describes why this is: as he puts it, they always opt for "the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, the ugly over the beautiful, the vulgar over the refined, the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success and, first and foremost, the evil over the good."

In the last decade or so, we have not seen his evaluation fail.

But does anyone really want injustice, whether a "leftist" or a "rightie"?

Absolutely. The Left wants outright racism, and lots of it -- just against everybody it designates as an "oppressor". And it wants discrimination against anybody it dubs an "oppressor," or anybody who does not subscribe to Leftism. That's pretty easy to prove.

...is it fair to say that the beautiful woman got the job fair and square according to a human vision of how things should work in society?

Is that really what you think the problem is today? Then you haven't been paying attention. Fat is in, with the Left. Men parading around dressed as women is in, with the Left. Beauty? That's "oppressive."

Might a jury cave into their instinctive prejudices when giving a verdict, whether it be that the boss discriminated against ugly women or whether the jury chose to favor ugliness over beauty?

You mean, would a jury excuse a strangler of three of her own beautiful children, simply because she's a woman?

[Walker]

Feminists and LGBTQ Activists Say They’re Losing Rights, Yet Defend Islam
https://patriotpost.us/articles/1001626 ... fend-islam

A contradiction in modern progressive activism is becoming utterly baffling.

The explanation to end the baffle is two part.

Part One: The Leftist Democrat Party comes first. That resolves the contradiction. Ideologies such as feminism are easily suspended by Democrats until the ideology is useful for gaining and protecting Democrat political and cultural power. The minions think and do what they are told to think and do, e.g., wear pink hats and protest whatever is currently on the agenda, on cue. Right now, gaining the favour of Muslims in America is the priority, so any criticism of Islamism is off-limits.

Part Two: Blame Trump for the loss of women’s rights. All that’s required is to just say he’s taking those rights away. As everyone on the frequency knows and accepts, explanations of how and why are unnecessary, and actually undesirable given some of the absurd reasoning that backs explanations, especially from the TDS afflicted. Anyone who asks for an explanation of how and why, is a hateful person, and as a threat to The Party deserves to be targeted, labeled, isolated, and invalidated.

[Immanuel Can]

Feminists and LGBTQ Activists Say They’re Losing Rights, Yet Defend Islam
https://patriotpost.us/articles/1001626 ... fend-islam

There's actually no mystery. All are death-cults that hate the West, and who want to destroy it in order to see their aimed-at "utopia" created. They all think that when the smoke and dust clear from the rubble, that they will be the agenda left in charge. So they make common cause for now...because they don't have to kill each other -- yet. But if they ever succeeded in destroying the West, then they'd soon discover that gays are men who don't like women and lesbians are women who don't like men, transers are men who want to replace women, women don't want and can't have gay men as partners, none of them is civilizationally reproductive; and Islamists hate them all even more than they hate the West.

How it plays out after the West gets taken down, you can figure out without any trouble.

[Gary Childress]

Evan Sayet has a speech from years ago that admirably describes why this is: as he puts it, they always opt for "the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, the ugly over the beautiful, the vulgar over the refined, the behaviours that lead to failure over those that lead to success and, first and foremost, the evil over the good."

In the last decade or so, we have not seen his evaluation fail.

But does anyone really want injustice, whether a "leftist" or a "rightie"?

Absolutely. The Left wants outright racism, and lots of it -- just against everybody it designates as an "oppressor". And it wants discrimination against anybody it dubs an "oppressor," or anybody who does not subscribe to Leftism. That's pretty easy to prove.

...is it fair to say that the beautiful woman got the job fair and square according to a human vision of how things should work in society?

Is that really what you think the problem is today? Then you haven't been paying attention. Fat is in, with the Left. Men parading around dressed as women is in, with the Left. Beauty? That's "oppressive."

Might a jury cave into their instinctive prejudices when giving a verdict, whether it be that the boss discriminated against ugly women or whether the jury chose to favor ugliness over beauty?

You mean, would a jury excuse a strangler of three of her own beautiful children, simply because she's a woman?

I wasn't referring to the particular court case being talked about here of the woman who murdered her children. I was responding to the criticism by Sayet that the left often champions the opposite of what the right champions. For example, the right might say that a beautiful person deserves admiration; the left might conversely say that the beautiful have a privileged place in society and the ugly are unfairly discriminated against at the most instinctive level in society. Valuing beauty and sticking up for the ugly both have some merit in my opinion. There's something to be said for both tendencies. The tendencies contradict each other and push in opposite directions, valuing opposite sides of society. One champions what most see as the better person who naturally appeals in society, the other champions what most see as the lesser person who isn't as privileged.

What I'm saying is that the world has many contradictions in it and an interplay of opposites. Sayet says the left champions the ugly, wretched, vulgar, and "evil" (that which is not of dominant value in society). The left presses in the opposite direction to the right, saying that the beautiful, refined, and "good" are unfairly privileged and therefore it is the ugly, wretched, vulgar and "evil" who deserve to be championed, the "underdogs" who deserve to be given a chance.

BTW, Nietzsche would very much approve of championing the, "strong, "beautiful," and "better". Nietzsche thought ugliness and weakness were traits championed only by the "slaves" of society. Eugenics was very much in fashion for the "master class" of society prior to the rise of the Nazis, and believing that the "better" should be appreciated more than the "lesser" was the basic argument of the eugenicists.

What I'm trying to show is that there is a logic and value to both the left and the right. One is not ultimate "evil" and the other ultimate "good", they fight each other over conflicts in values. They both have a grain of truth in them. As an American citizen growing up not long into the aftermath of WWII, things like racism, eugenics, and prejudice were taught to me as being some of the greatest social evils imaginable, responsible for the Holocaust, slavery, colonialism, poverty among minorities, and many ills of the past. I was taught to oppose those things. Perhaps there is a point where favoring the underdog becomes raising the underdog above everyone else. That's certainly possible, and that seems to be the position of Sayet's complaint about the left.

[Immanuel Can]

For example, the right might say that a beautiful person deserves admiration; the left might conversely say that the beautiful have a privileged place in society and the ugly are unfairly discriminated against at the most instinctive level in society.

You're agreeing with Sayet. He points out that the Left inevitably labels anything successful as "privileged," and feels justified to envy and hate it, and to abuse those who have it. But "privileged" is a nonsense label. Things don't become "privileged" merely by being good, or better, or more lovely.

"Privileged" implies an undeserved and unfair advantage. But a person who has received some advantage is a thing to be celebrated, not resented. Something better is a thing to be emulated, not pulled down. Something successful is something to be replicated, not destroyed. The Left, possessed by the green-eyed monster, never sees any of that. Instead of being happy for others, they are bitter, hateful and vicious toward them, and regard that as virtuous.

I sincerely hope you have "privileges." Use them wisely, and make the world a better place for us all. Hooray for you.

...the other champions what most see as the lesser person who isn't as privileged.

That's what they use to make themselves feel virtuous: they say, "My rage is advocating for the oppressed." But it's not. It's actually just campaigning for their own envy. And you can see this in so many Leftist causes.

For example, why are Feminists so utterly contemptuous of pre-born women? Why do they so hate women who choose to be traditional? Why are they so utterly uncaring about the plight of women in the Developing World, and particularly under Islam? Because they don't care about women. They care about themselves, and about some of their peers. And it's all about getting advantages for themselves and their own friends.

I will buy that the Left advocates for suffering women when they start advocating for women who are REALLY suffering...and even dying, and dying horribly. And I will buy that black lives matter to Black Lives Matter when they start to care about black-on-black violence and exploitation, whether in Chicago or in Nigeria, and when the neighbourhoods they razed have better schools, better shops, more services, and more hope as a result of BLM.

And I'll buy that climate advocates are concerned about the climate when they begin their sentences with the words, "What we're going to do about China and India is...," and when they stop advocating for things that destroy the environment.

But I'm not holding my breath on any of these Leftist causes. Leftists don't love anybody; they're just experts in envy.