WOKE and proud of it....

[Immanuel Can]

He says that he would have been able to prevent the attacks on Israel and Ukraine and he can stop the war in one day if elected.

What's your basis for thinking he's wrong? Those wars didn't exist when he was president, and maybe he could stop them, for all we know. Isn't that something you want? Biden won't stop them...and clearly can't.

Did Jesus say that he was the messiah?

Yes. Mark 14, for example. Or John 4:25-26. So yeah, He did.

Did Trump?

[Dubious]

Now we have all seen that Biden is horribly, horribly demented.

What a loathsome, disgusting prejudiced bullshitter you are. To be "horribly, horribly demented"

Just what I expected. Complete denial of the obvious truth. Well, that, and irrelevant abuse.

If you want to see an objective view of 'demented', look no further than your mirror.

[phyllo]

What's your basis for thinking he's wrong? Those wars didn't exist when he was president, and maybe he could stop them, for all we know. Isn't that something you want? Biden won't stop them...and clearly can't.

He can stop lots of wars as president. For example, by not supporting the NATO allies when they are attacked - forcing them to surrender.

I think he could stop the war in Ukraine by ending weapon shipments to Ukraine. Ukraine would be force to cede territory to Russia. After a while, they would be attacked again and they would have to cede more territory. Until there is no Ukraine left.

While he was president he didn't solve the Israel-Palestine problem. If anything, he made it worse.

He has a messianic complex. Which is what Gary brought up. That's the subject.

Where was this word, "Messiah"?

Did Jesus say that he was the messiah?

Yes. Mark 14, for example. Or John 4:25-26. So yeah, He did.

Since you're being so literal, Jesus never used the word "messiah".

[Harbal]

That may not be "the only reason," but it's certainly one of them. In fact, "identity" is one of the things that the Left insists are "constructed," not given by reality.

I'm not particular "left", but it seems to me that identity is almost entirely constructed.

That seems obviously wrong. When a baby is born, the doctor doesn't say, "Let's make this one female," and the parents, if theyy have a "sex-reveal" party, don't say, "Well, it was born with a penis, but we're declaring it female." It is whatever it is.

And the same is true of Jenner. Why do you think he so fervently insists he has to "become" a woman? One never has to "become" what one already is. "Becoming a woman" is moving from the reality of being a man, in an attempt to declare that one was "really" a woman all along.

Nothing's "constructed" there, except the ideology of transing.

Okay, you don't agree with me, but you could at least thank me for letting you use me as an excuse to vent your feelings about this Jenner dude.

That illustrates how bizarre the situation came become if it is allowed, but I think it supports my assertion that our reality is, to a great extent, constructed.

I don't see that it does that at all. It just illustrates that Jenner is delusional, as is everybody who goes along with his delusion. Or more precisely, they are ideologically-possessed.

What is the difference between a delusion and a constructed reality?
You think God is real, I think he is your delusion. I think my morality is real, albeit subjectively mine, but you tell me it is a delusion.

I still cannot help experiencing morality as something real,

That is, indeed, a big problem for your theory. To be a Subjectivist means that you simply cannot believe that anything in reality corresponds to morality. It has to be entirely imaginary.

It's not a problem. Morality is an aspect of human psychology, and I am human, therefore it is no mystery to me that I experience it.

With you, as with many, it always seems to be a case of all or nothing,...

Some things are like that. There's no "shading" between something existing and the same thing not existing. Either biological sex exists as a real thing, or it does not really exist at all. One cannot simultaneously sing the song both ways.

But the issue involves much more than biological sex, yet you are intent on reducing it to that.

Boys cannot grow up to bear children, and girls cannot grow up get them pregnant, but much of our attitudes about gender are constructed.

Sure, we have constructed particular behavior expectations. That's a commonplace. But that's far from suggesting that even these constructions were not premised on biological facts, sometimes. For example, we do not let women compete in combat or strength sports against equivalent men. And with good reason; that puts the women at such a total disadvantage as to guarantee them defeat. A 30-year-old athletic man will absolutely defeat every equivalently-athletic female of the same age, for example...and it won't even be close. Hence the reason for Title 9 protections for women's sports.

I've already said that biological males should not be allowed to compete in women's sport. However, if a 20 stone bricklayer's labourer wants to wear a wig and call himself Chardonnay, or something, why make life difficult for him, if that's what makes him happy?

I thoroughly agree that a biological male should not be allowed to take part in competitive female sport, and should not be granted the status of woman in various other areas, but I see no reason to raise any objection to whatever someone wants to identify as when there is no cost to us.

Why do you agree? If he's genuinely a woman, and it was all "constructed" and is now "reconstructed," why do you "discriminate against" him?

I don't know what you mean. He might be a genuine woman as far as he is concerned, but that's his perceived reality, not mine. There are reasons why he should not be able to claim full social and legal status of a woman, and I don't think anyone should be compelled to accept him as one, but in as much as he can live his life as one without hurting me, why would I want to be mean enough to spoil that for him?

[Harbal]

Has a Kropotkin thread ever seen this much action before?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Has a Kropotkin thread ever seen this much action before?

K: as a long-time married man, 28 years next Friday...
this thread has seen way more action than I've seen in a long time....

Kropotkin

[Gary Childress]

Here’s the test: you are presented with a situation by nerdy social scientists: Alexiev, Gary, Kropotkin, and Flash are in a holding cell behind a mirrored wall and cannot see you. You’ve been given a switch that sends an electric jolt when they engage in lying or just spouting the typical nonsense. There is a dial — 1 to 10 — next to the switch, and the test is to see: Do you send mild jolts at say level 2 or do you crank the bitch up to nine?

Ah but here is where the essence of the test lies please pay attention: the switch is connected to your bank account! Low-level shocks administered cost you 25 cents or 50 cents. But after level 5 the cost increases to $10 and $20 and $50.

How long before you go broke?

Fuck you, asshole.

I strongly urge you, Gary, to resist any feelings of remorse you might later experience for making that comment, and, unless you want to disappoint a lot of people, do not apologise for it.

I always feel remorse. IC and AJ wouldn't enjoy trolling me if I didn't. All they want is to troll the schizo. It's a sport.

[accelafine]

.

[henry quirk]

Has a Kropotkin thread ever seen this much action before?

K: as a long-time married man, 28 years next Friday...
*this thread has seen way more action than I've seen in a long time....

Kropotkin

*this explains quite a lot

-----

and now for sumthin' completely different...

DD57EB52-230F-4B1A-83E9-B658D4EF5977.jpeg

[accelafine]

From what I've observed, at least 90 percent of the people who use this site are completely insane. If they had a rational thought it would give them such a shock that they would probably have a massive heart attack and keel over.
The weird thing is that all the sane people are on X, despite the horror stories you hear about it. The algorithms take care of that for the most part.
And an even weirder thing is that 'Gary the schizo' is one of the few on here who come across as sane and rational.
Sorry if this disrupts your self-image as the resident nutter, Gary.

[attofishpi]

K: sure, let us rehash old stuff.......

who am I to say that another person possibilities are wrong and
unnatural? For me to achieve what is possible for me, requires
that others accept those possibilities....and for others to achieve
their own possibilities, I must accept their possibilities....

if a man believes himself to be a woman, what right do I have
to tell him he is wrong? why do I have the right to deny him
his possibilities, and based on what reasons, do I deny him
his possibilities?

for if I claim the right to deny him his possibilities, he can then claim the right
to deny me my own possibilities... on what grounds do we deny others
their possibilities? on what standard? on what grounds do we deny
a man their own possibilities to be a woman? What standard are we
using? and remember, any standard we use to deny other's rights, can then
be used against us in our own search for us reaching our possibilities.....

Richard Feynman "If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it."

Let's take the red bit. Notice, you used "HIM" - what right to tell "HIM" etc..

You ask: ..what right do I have to tell him he is wrong?

Every women in a women's sporting outfit has every right to tell a MAN that he cannot pretend to be a WOMAN and compete fairly as a woman in their sport.

AGAIN:- What rational argument do you have as to why MEN can always claim to be WOMEN

Is it so that male pansies can finally start winning medals?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I always feel remorse. IC and AJ wouldn't enjoy trolling me if I didn't. All they want is to troll the schizo. It's a sport.

IC is genuinely compassionate but I am a hair sadistic. So let’s get that straight.

[accelafine]

if a man believes himself to be a woman, what right do I have
to tell him he is wrong? why do I have the right to deny him
his possibilities, and based on what reasons, do I deny him
his possibilities?

You don't have to tell him he's wrong. He already knows that. Scratch the surface of an AGP and you get a raging, mentally unstable, testoserone-fueled misogynistic abuser. It's cosplay. A sexual fetish. What you CAN do is stop him from stomping on WOMEN'S rights and safety concerns. You CAN tell him he can't compete in WOMEN'S sports, or change in WOMEN'S changing rooms, or be in WOMEN'S prisons.
Sorry if this is too rational for you. I do hope your head doesn't explode. Women can do this without men anyway. The cult will self-destruct soon enough under the sheer weight of 'noargumentism' and 'antiscienceism'. Perhaps when the lawsuits start piling up?

[accelafine]

The misogyny of wokism.


Here we have an expensive advertising campaign that is shaming women into considering the 'feelings' of men before their own natural instincts regarding safety. I suggest reading the comments. Poor man feels 'unsafe' all alone in a lift. Poor hurty feelings. Bad, bad lady.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al5wW8I8In0

[Immanuel Can]

What's your basis for thinking he's wrong? Those wars didn't exist when he was president, and maybe he could stop them, for all we know. Isn't that something you want? Biden won't stop them...and clearly can't.

He can stop lots of wars as president. For example, by not supporting the NATO allies when they are attacked - forcing them to surrender.

Do you think that's actually what he'd do? What are you basing that on?

While he was president he didn't solve the Israel-Palestine problem.

Au contraire, he created the famed Abraham Accords, which came close to providing the first basis of peace in living memory. Did you not know that?

He has a messianic complex.

Where's the evidence for that?

Where was this word, "Messiah"?

Did Jesus say that he was the messiah?

Yes. Mark 14, for example. Or John 4:25-26. So yeah, He did.

Since you're being so literal, Jesus never used the word "messiah".

Did you not know that "Christ" is literally the Greek translation of "Messiah"? Both simply mean "Anointed One." So yeah, he did; for he spoke in Aramaic, and it was recorded in Greek. So the exact word Christ used would have been "Messiah."