a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Alexis Jacobi]

but how many people actually hold to their beliefs/opinions by
way of an ''reevaluation of values" as to what they actually believe,
not to what was their education/indoctrination was....
people are against drag shows because that is what they
were educated/indoctrinated with... nothing more...

You have a skewed idea of what you are talking about. You seem entirely *indoctrinated* by Left/Progressive (and hyper-liberal) tenets. Something to examine in any case.

American Conservatism is undergirded by meticulously articulated ideas. It is a political and social philosophy with an extensive background in Occidental ideas, indeed its foundations are there.

The effort to *turn against* the present excesses (hyper-liberalism, etc.) is grounded in the articulation of ideas.

There are many -- dozens -- of Right-leaning political philosophers whose works are suppressed, while those on the Left or even Left-Revolutionaly scale are favored.

This short video outlines the issue.

There is a longer video interview of Millerman that is also very worthwhile (as are many video presentations on Millerman's channel).

[Alexis Jacobi]

...there is no such thing as an ''objective'' argument, there are only arguments from a psychological standpoint... I was raised Catholic, an example, and so I hold certain beliefs fundamental to Catholics... if you don't belief in god or Jesus, I don't see how one could be a Catholic.... and so an "objective" argument from people will be about what values, indoctrinations, beliefs, education they were raised with... and those values/beliefs/education and indoctrinations, are what drive an "objective" argument, not logic or clear reasoning, those too are impacted by our beliefs and values and indoctrinations we were raised with...

An argument, by definition, is the presentation and defense of a particular view, so in a sense you are right: an argument reflects a POV or an angle and is intended to persuade and to convince. An argument rarely sets out to negate itself. However, there are those who argue 'both sides of an issue' and then synthesize a possible solution or resolution -- or perhaps leave the question open.

But there certainly are *objective stances* and people who are more, or less, objective in their approach to issues, questions, controversy, etc.

I would be interested to hear more about your Catholic formation. There are numerous levels to such a formation: the simple or perhaps 'superficial' formation. But there is a far deeper formation that involves a deeper study of metaphysics.

True, it would begin not to make much sense if one did not believe in god or in Jesus and if one still remained a Catholic. But I would suggest that it is not completely possible to have a faith crisis, and doubt both god and Jesus, while still opting to 'believe in' and follow (live by) the general tenets of Catholic social doctrine. Or perhaps to have a vague, undefined sense of what god is.

It is true that our 'values' depend on our cultural milieu, and certainly there are differences between different cultures. However, we are all Occidentals and there is a long intellectual history that unites us. There are basic foundations that are combinations or syntheses of Greek. Judaic, Roman ideas and outlooks which have become melded.

The more that one knows of those basic currents, the more that one is steeped in them, the more one understands that there is a unifying current.

But when one loses connection with *that* one falls away from what unifies. And if (as I often argue) one has been swept up in or has fallen into an acidic current -- like so-called Cultural Marxism and Marxism generally -- in odd ways one turns against all of that.

and those values/beliefs/education and indoctrinations, are what drive an "objective" argument, not logic or clear reasoning

A muddled statement -- typical of you. First, to 'think rationally' and reasonably requires a preparatory education and the establishment of a foundation in those terms (the terms of discourse). For us that is the Greek traditions. There is also the mathematical or geometric foundation of discourse -- for example Euclidian proofs. So in fact 'logic and clear reasoning' come first -- as a capacity -- and then one may be introduced to value-sets; to structural ideas; to principles, etc.

And when one has a base in the capability, and then the material with which to deal intellectually, then one can indeed 'objectively argue'. So what is the function of your skewed, muddy argument? It is to imply that objectivity is not possible. You seem to imagine that you are even basically capable of 'reasoned argument' yet you clearly are not! Your thinking is scatter-brained. Obviously, in your condition you could not be expected to be objective.

Literally, indoctrination means to receive doctrines. And certainly there are varying degrees of indoctrination. But a reasonable person with a mind capable of reasoning may not have been *indoctrinated* in the negative sense of the word and the sense that you imply.

And it is interesting to note that those who are 'intellectually mature' and also extremely well-informed (well-educated, roundly educated) tend to be able to achieve the most objective outlooks. And such people do certainly exist within our own traditions.

[Peter Kropotkin]

but how many people actually hold to their beliefs/opinions by
way of an ''reevaluation of values" as to what they actually believe,
not to what was their education/indoctrination was....
people are against drag shows because that is what they
were educated/indoctrinated with... nothing more...

You have a skewed idea of what you are talking about. You seem entirely *indoctrinated* by Left/Progressive (and hyper-liberal) tenets. Something to examine in any case.

American Conservatism is undergirded by meticulously articulated ideas. It is a political and social philosophy with an extensive background in Occidental ideas, indeed its foundations are there.

The effort to *turn against* the present excesses (hyper-liberalism, etc.) is grounded in the articulation of ideas.

There are many -- dozens -- of Right-leaning political philosophers whose works are suppressed, while those on the Left or even Left-Revolutionaly scale are favored.

This short video outlines the issue.

There is a longer video interview of Millerman that is also very worthwhile (as are many video presentations on Millerman's channel).

K: as I am deaf, I don't watch video's... closed captioning or not....
and as far as being "indoctrinated" by the left, I have made it quite
clear that I have had several political positions... I am where I am at
today by thinking and reading and putting my idea's into the fire,
as it were...I hold to my positions because they are the closes positions
I know of, that I believe in and in fact, I can use as a ''way of life"
you can't actually use a conservative position as a ''way of life"
because following tradition is a path to failure... we must, if we
are to survive as human beings, as a country and as a species,
move with the time, change with the everchanging environment...

and for instance, is the fact that America did/has done far better under
democratic presidents than under GOP presidents.. economically, socially,
legally and politically....or do you think that bush jr or IQ45
were actually good presidents? As opposed to Clinton, Obama or
even today, Biden... and the GOP/MAGA reliance on the "culture wars"
proves my point....if the GOP/MAGA politicians actually had anything
to run on, like economic policies or foreign policies, they would run
on those policies... like for example, how would the GOP/MAGA
deal with such policy issues as health care cost or even education
issues? I haven't heard of a single proposal from anyone on the right
to address these issues... or how about the insane proposal to
increase the retirement age to 70...offered by GOP/MAGA politicians...
as someone hoping to retire within a couple of years....
(I have enough to buy a burger and a soft drink, I still need
enough to buy the fries or any meal deal for that matter)

I don't hear of policy solutions, I hear the culture war stuff..
that trans kid in Ohio who is threating our way of life.. shit....

You claim that conservatism is "undergirded by meticulously
articulate idea's" and what "meticulously articulated idea's''
does IQ45 HAVE, or perhaps Marjorie Taylor Greene.. henceforth
known as MTG, what idea's does she have? or perhaps, you can
point out anyone in congress who is GOP/MAGA, that has
"meticulously articulated idea's"....

your claim about the theory of conservatism is falsified by the
reality of what conservatism actually is today....conservatism
today is about hate, lust, anger, greed, racism and misogyny...
not so much about ' meticulously articulated ideas''...
I find it hard to believe that MTG or IQ45 even have idea's...
I suspect as in Willam Jenning Bryant, their brains are where
idea's go to die of loneliness.... in fact, please tell me an
idea by a conservative in the last year, that was ''meticulous
articulated." .....

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

If you have one idea I might respond to, I might try.

As it is I can respond relationally to things you say. But without some severe editing I can’t respond. Too muddled.

[phyllo]

Maybe you could list some conservative philosophers for his consideration.

Otherwise he won't stop talking about Trump.

[Alexis Jacobi]

K: as I am deaf, I don't watch video's... closed captioning or not....

On each YouTube video (to the right there are three dots) you can click to see a transcript and you can read.

In fact I did not know this until Phyllo pointed it out.

FYI

[Alexis Jacobi]

…your claim about the theory of conservatism is falsified by the reality of what conservatism actually is today....conservatism
today is about hate, lust, anger, greed, racism and misogyny...

1) Conservatism is undergirded by clearly expounded, rational ideas.

2) MTG describes herself as a Conservative but (it is asserted) she does not have any rigorous philosophical training nor does she deal in ideas.

3) Therefore, we must conclude that Conservatism as an intellectual school of thought is tainted and invalid.

conservatism today is about hate, lust, anger, greed, racism and misogyny...

The theory of ‘projection’ is useful to consider in some circumstances. The tendency, or habit, to project onto another (usually an enemy) inner content or tendencies that one is not courageous enough to see, recognize and confront in oneself.

Added notes

“Hate” is a blame-term, a darkly insinuating term, used to shame & revile. It is intensely rhetorical. So a parent may desire their child to remain free of the introduction of perverse sexual theatrics in a school or library — but it is thoroughly false to define the motive there as hatred of a person or people. A genuine and sound concern is attacked indirectly by assigning to it the motive of “hatred”.

A confused mind will not be able to discern this underhanded argument tactic. It is completely fallacious.

Each of your “hot terms”, my fuzzy-minded friend, can be examined similarly to my breakdown of the term “hate”.

I just got off the phone with MTG. We conversed for a few minutes in Latin. She is of the opinion that the lesser works of Virgil deserve greater respect and attention whereas I find them certainly charming but relatively unimportant.

Bitch hung up on me!!

[Peter Kropotkin]

…your claim about the theory of conservatism is falsified by the reality of what conservatism actually is today....conservatism
today is about hate, lust, anger, greed, racism and misogyny...

1) Conservatism is undergirded by clearly expounded, rational ideas.

(PS, I stand by my words about the values espoused by the GOP/MAGA party)

K: ok, feel free to explain these idea's as they relate to the modern
GOP/MAGA party.... and if you can't do that, explain
conservatism...and I will fill in the blanks, how your explanation
of conservatism is being used by the GOP/MAGA party...

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

ok, feel free to explain these idea's as they relate to the modern GOP/MAGA party....

Sure. The cost for that is $199.00

Do you have a PayPal account?

[iambiguous]

As noted above, being a drag queen, much like anything else involving value judgments given the complex nature of human interactions, involves pros and cons.

Those on both sides are able to point to things that are in fact true given their own set of assumptions regarding human sexuality and gender roles. And all the other side can really do is to interject with their own alternative set of assumptions.

Which set is the most rational? And, more to the point here, are philosophers/ethicists able to wade through all of the conflicting assessments down through the ages in order to pin down the optimal or even the only rational frame of mind?

Being a Drag Queen, dressing up as one, is of course a rather fringe activity generally speaking.

True. Just as being a homosexual reflects but a fraction of the overall population: https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... statistics

But that's why some who are not drag queens or homosexuals will then insist that this means they are "perverts" or "deviants" who behave "unnaturally". And, above all else, must be kept far, far, far removed from...the children.

When, in fact, throughout the animal kingdom, homosexuality can often be engaged in quite naturally indeed: https://youtu.be/OXW5ID5duDA

Here is your own "rooted existentially in dasein", subjective frame of mind:

The mass introduction of transvestism and other forms of deviancy (deviancy from an established, indeed a universal norm) when it is part of a social movement in which powerful interests get behind and *support* is what is problematic.

So, this is not simply an issue of men who have, throughout history and for different reasons, dressed as women, and it is really something else and something more. Connected to it (as I already presented through the investigative work of Bilek) are corporate interests in the form of corporate bolstering as well as the *industry* that is developing around sex-change, puberty blockers, etc.

Only you insist that your own political prejudices here have nothing to do with dasein as I understand it in the threads above. Instead, you'll insist, your frame of mind really does reflect the optimal, most rational manner in which to "think through" all of this. Philosophically or otherwise. An objectivist frame of mind. Like Satyr's. Like the Nazis. Only you wouldn't go as far as they do in your own "best of all possible communities".

And, perhaps, some drag queens and homosexuals among us appreciate that.

Now back to the "analysis":

Finally, there is the issue of sexual dysphoria which requires some sociological analysis. It could be seen as a pathological social phenomenon. It could be examined as a pathology with links to other, psychological issues. Harder to make sense of, no doubt, and yet this examination cannot be avoided.

But here the question arises: Who will do the examination? And according to what set of criteria?

Note to Satyr:

By all means, weigh in here. There where you are.

I suggested that AJ go there too and examine the criteria in an exchange with you. Perhaps if you formally invite him...?

assumptions regarding human sexuality and gender roles

Again, however, the distinction I make here revolves around differentiating assumptions derived existentially from dasein given the life one has lived, and assumptions derived intellectually from "philosophical ideas" and exchanged up in the didactic -- and even at times pedantic -- scholastic clouds.

To witless:

This statement reflects a very specific outlook and is completely tied up with Marxian praxis. To make the assertion that gender and sexuality are 'assumptions' is one of the key terms that gives it away. Then 'gender roles'. Where did these ideas come from? They are, without any doubt, connected to Marxist praxis and here the acidic idea is used in social activism. On one hand the destablilzation of the family because it is the core 'patriarchal unit'. Not only is woman oppressed by this 'artificial' (assumptive) family unit but children too are oppressed by it and in it.

What more effective tool then than to recommend revolutionary social activism within the family? Convert woman into a Marxist operative. Politicize the relationship-dynamic. Problematize it. Turn the children against paternal and parental authority. And then to *queer* gender and, by extension, imply (as has been implied if you read the seminal texts) that the formerly defined 'normalcy' is, in fact, pathological abnormality that must be addressed through reeducation -- as for example using Maoist methods: shame and blame; 'struggle sessions', parading the backward recalcitrants through the public sphere on a shame walk and not to mention social cancellation.

Any encounter and negotiation with these doctrines, this activism and this praxis, always involves surrendering to it, never the other way around. First, some acceptance and tolerance is granted (first negotiation). Then more is asked for and demanded through activism and PR -- and more concessions are made. Any negotiation in the opposite direction is associated with Nazi control techniques and, of course, internment camps and gas chambers.

It is not hard to see that each negotiation is an incremental loss for what is and can be defined as 'normal'. And the important thing is to recognize that the category of 'normal' is problematized through Marist rhetoric and praxis.

To reverse all of this means seeing how the rhetoric is structured and operates. It also involves recovering ground formerly sacrified.

Any actual Marxists -- Maoists -- among us willing to go up into the intellectual clouds with him and rebut this?



Back to Satyr:

See? Didn't I tell you. Reading him here is like reading you there. So, why would I not suspect that perhaps you are him here?

[Alexis Jacobi]

See? Didn't I tell you. Reading him here is like reading you there. So, why would I not suspect that perhaps you are him here?

No! it is not that Satyr is me here, but rather that I am Satyr there. You've got things ass-backward.

You did at least some intellectual work in your post but not much. But in general your approach -- your orientation -- is skewed.

[henry quirk]

Fetishes are indefensible.

Joe likes to pretend he's Josephine. Mebbe he's industrious enough to get stage work tellin' corny jokes and actin' outrageous in his Mae West-derived persona. Good on him, I guess.

He's still a guy.

Stephen actually believes he's Stephanie. He elects to have his johnson removed, his Adam's apple shaved down, and to endure a lifetime of hormone therapies and surgeries (the wound he calls his vagina needs regular service to stay open); he presents himself as a woman and expects you to respect his pronouns. Good on him too, I guess.

He's a guy, though.

Neither guy is particularly healthy and it's a mistake to pretend they are.

We ought recognize and respect Joe and Stephen have an absolute right to do with themselves (and no one else) as they like. We don't, however, owe them our approval or understanding or patronage.

Of course, you can do as you like: throw money at Josephine, date Stephanie; makes me no never-mind. Pigs wallow with pigs.




yes, I've returned...to celebrate I've released all the inmates from my penalty box...the fractured nihilist, the eye-blisterin' autist, the outspoken harridan, the neo-liberal secret king, the mechanized determinist, the commie perv, and all the rest, all free to pollute my forum view...knock yerselves out

[iambiguous]

I'm sorry, but he leaves me no alternative:

ME:

As noted above, being a drag queen, much like anything else involving value judgments given the complex nature of human interactions, involves pros and cons.

Those on both sides are able to point to things that are in fact true given their own set of assumptions regarding human sexuality and gender roles. And all the other side can really do is to interject with their own alternative set of assumptions.

Which set is the most rational? And, more to the point here, are philosophers/ethicists able to wade through all of the conflicting assessments down through the ages in order to pin down the optimal or even the only rational frame of mind?

Being a Drag Queen, dressing up as one, is of course a rather fringe activity generally speaking.

True. Just as being a homosexual reflects but a fraction of the overall population: https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... statistics

But that's why some who are not drag queens or homosexuals will then insist that this means they are "perverts" or "deviants" who behave "unnaturally". And, above all else, must be kept far, far, far removed from...the children.

When, in fact, throughout the animal kingdom, homosexuality can often be engaged in quite naturally indeed: https://youtu.be/OXW5ID5duDA

Here is your own "rooted existentially in dasein", subjective frame of mind:

The mass introduction of transvestism and other forms of deviancy (deviancy from an established, indeed a universal norm) when it is part of a social movement in which powerful interests get behind and *support* is what is problematic.

So, this is not simply an issue of men who have, throughout history and for different reasons, dressed as women, and it is really something else and something more. Connected to it (as I already presented through the investigative work of Bilek) are corporate interests in the form of corporate bolstering as well as the *industry* that is developing around sex-change, puberty blockers, etc.

Only you insist that your own political prejudices here have nothing to do with dasein as I understand it in the threads above. Instead, you'll insist, your frame of mind really does reflect the optimal, most rational manner in which to "think through" all of this. Philosophically or otherwise. An objectivist frame of mind. Like Satyr's. Like the Nazis. Only you wouldn't go as far as they do in your own "best of all possible communities".

And, perhaps, some drag queens and homosexuals among us appreciate that.

Now back to the "analysis":

Finally, there is the issue of sexual dysphoria which requires some sociological analysis. It could be seen as a pathological social phenomenon. It could be examined as a pathology with links to other, psychological issues. Harder to make sense of, no doubt, and yet this examination cannot be avoided.

But here the question arises: Who will do the examination? And according to what set of criteria?

Note to Satyr:

By all means, weigh in here. There where you are.

I suggested that AJ go there too and examine the criteria in an exchange with you. Perhaps if you formally invite him...?

assumptions regarding human sexuality and gender roles

Again, however, the distinction I make here revolves around differentiating assumptions derived existentially from dasein given the life one has lived, and assumptions derived intellectually from "philosophical ideas" and exchanged up in the didactic -- and even at times pedantic -- scholastic clouds.

To witless:

This statement reflects a very specific outlook and is completely tied up with Marxian praxis. To make the assertion that gender and sexuality are 'assumptions' is one of the key terms that gives it away. Then 'gender roles'. Where did these ideas come from? They are, without any doubt, connected to Marxist praxis and here the acidic idea is used in social activism. On one hand the destablilzation of the family because it is the core 'patriarchal unit'. Not only is woman oppressed by this 'artificial' (assumptive) family unit but children too are oppressed by it and in it.

What more effective tool then than to recommend revolutionary social activism within the family? Convert woman into a Marxist operative. Politicize the relationship-dynamic. Problematize it. Turn the children against paternal and parental authority. And then to *queer* gender and, by extension, imply (as has been implied if you read the seminal texts) that the formerly defined 'normalcy' is, in fact, pathological abnormality that must be addressed through reeducation -- as for example using Maoist methods: shame and blame; 'struggle sessions', parading the backward recalcitrants through the public sphere on a shame walk and not to mention social cancellation.

Any encounter and negotiation with these doctrines, this activism and this praxis, always involves surrendering to it, never the other way around. First, some acceptance and tolerance is granted (first negotiation). Then more is asked for and demanded through activism and PR -- and more concessions are made. Any negotiation in the opposite direction is associated with Nazi control techniques and, of course, internment camps and gas chambers.

It is not hard to see that each negotiation is an incremental loss for what is and can be defined as 'normal'. And the important thing is to recognize that the category of 'normal' is problematized through Marist rhetoric and praxis.

To reverse all of this means seeing how the rhetoric is structured and operates. It also involves recovering ground formerly sacrified.

Any actual Marxists -- Maoists -- among us willing to go up into the intellectual clouds with him and rebut this?

Back to Satyr:

See? Didn't I tell you. Reading him here is like reading you there. So, why would I not suspect that perhaps you are him here?

HIM:

See? Didn't I tell you. Reading him here is like reading you there. So, why would I not suspect that perhaps you are him here?

No! it is not that Satyr is me here, but rather that I am Satyr there. You've got things ass-backward.

Note to Satyr:

So, does this amuse you...or enrage you? Well, unless, of course, it's true.

You did at least some intellectual work in your post but not much. But in general your approach -- your orientation -- is skewed.

Absolutely shameless.

[iambiguous]

Fetishes are indefensible.

Joe likes to pretend he's Josephine. Mebbe he's industrious enough to get stage work tellin' corny jokes and actin' outrageous in his Mae West-derived persona. Good on him, I guess.

He's still a guy.

Stephen actually believes he's Stephanie. He elects to have his johnson removed, his Adam's apple shaved down, and to endure a lifetime of hormone therapies and surgeries (the wound he calls his vagina needs regular service to stay open); he presents himself as a woman and expects you to respect his pronouns. Good on him too, I guess.

He's a guy, though.

Neither guy is particularly healthy and it's a mistake to pretend they are.

We ought recognize and respect Joe and Stephen have an absolute right to do with themselves (and no one else) as they like. We don't, however, owe them our approval or understanding or patronage.

Of course, you can do as you like: throw money at Josephine, date Stephanie; makes me no never-mind. Pigs wallow with pigs.




yes, I've returned...to celebrate I've released all the inmates from my penalty box...the fractured nihilist, the eye-blisterin' autist, the outspoken harridan, the neo-liberal secret king, the mechanized determinist, the commie perv, and all the rest, all free to pollute my forum view...knock yerselves out

Maybe. But you're still going straight to Hell if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. And I suggest that you do because as Immanuel Can will no doubt assure you, there are no pigs wallowing with other pigs in Heaven.

Though I'm sure there are plenty of assholes with bazookas.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, I've returned...to celebrate I've released all the inmates from my penalty box...the fractured nihilist, the eye-blisterin' autist, the outspoken harridan, the neo-liberal secret king, the mechanized determinist, the commie perv, and all the rest, all free to pollute my forum view...knock yerselves out

I wonder if I could identify each of your descriptions and unite them with their rightful (frightful) owners!

Whew! Looks like (::: trembling in fear :::) I might have escaped the box.