Like so many other âprotestors,â it does absolutely no good to piss people off in general to make a point. Other examples include blocking off the whole damn bridge because of the apartheid of the Palestinians. You make people mad at you and they donât suddenly think, âhey, maybe theyâre right about a complex political idea!â
You want to make a difference, create a coherent and thoughtful argument and present it - even by confrontation without violence - to the people who can do something about it. Otherwise, itâs just hormones + powerlessness = tantrum.
Like so many other âprotestors,â it does absolutely no good to piss people off in general to make a point. Other examples include blocking off the whole damn bridge because of the apartheid of the Palestinians. You make people mad at you and they donât suddenly think, âhey, maybe theyâre right about a complex political idea!â
You want to make a difference, create a coherent and thoughtful argument and present it - even by confrontation without violence - to the people who can do something about it. Otherwise, itâs just hormones + powerlessness = tantrum.
BTW, the Better Half⢠and I have a history of leaving destruction in our wake when we travel. After we saw Paris, rains flooded the Louvre. Recently we visited Nagano and the series of earthquakes happened nearby. Many years ago I picked her up from work and drove through the Oakland area and then fires destroyed the area.
And, of course, a month or so ago we spent time at Stonehenge. We always apologize when we visit places, knowing things like this are inevitable.
One of my weirder and more rewarding hobbies is collecting definitions of "conservativism," and one of the jewels of that collection comes from Corey Robin's must-read book The Reactionary Mind:
Robin's definition of conservativism has enormous explanatory power and I'm always finding fresh ways in which it clarifies my understand of events in the world: a conservative is someone who believes that a minority of people were born to rule, and that everyone else was born to follow their rules, and that the world is in harmony when the born rulers are in charge.
This definition unifies the otherwise very odd grab-bag of ideologies that we identify with conservativism: a Christian Dominionist believes in the rule of Christians over others; a "men's rights advocate" thinks men should rule over women; a US imperialist thinks America should rule over the world; a white nationalist thinks white people should rule over racialized people; a libertarian believes in bosses dominating workers and a Hindu nationalist believes in Hindu domination over Muslims.
These people all disagree about who should be in charge, but they all agree that some people are ordained to rule, and that any "artificial" attempt to overturn the "natural" order throws society into chaos. This is the entire basis of the panic over DEI, and the brainless reflex to blame the Francis Scott Key bridge disaster on the possibility that someone had been unjustly promoted to ship's captain due to their membership in a disfavored racial group or gender.(...)
Everything and everyone I hate—real or imaginary—is "conservatism".
One of my weirder and more rewarding hobbies is collecting definitions of "conservativism," and one of the jewels of that collection comes from Corey Robin's must-read book The Reactionary Mind:
Robin's definition of conservativism has enormous explanatory power and I'm always finding fresh ways in which it clarifies my understand of events in the world: a conservative is someone who believes that a minority of people were born to rule, and that everyone else was born to follow their rules, and that the world is in harmony when the born rulers are in charge.
This definition unifies the otherwise very odd grab-bag of ideologies that we identify with conservativism: a Christian Dominionist believes in the rule of Christians over others; a "men's rights advocate" thinks men should rule over women; a US imperialist thinks America should rule over the world; a white nationalist thinks white people should rule over racialized people; a libertarian believes in bosses dominating workers and a Hindu nationalist believes in Hindu domination over Muslims.
These people all disagree about who should be in charge, but they all agree that some people are ordained to rule, and that any "artificial" attempt to overturn the "natural" order throws society into chaos. This is the entire basis of the panic over DEI, and the brainless reflex to blame the Francis Scott Key bridge disaster on the possibility that someone had been unjustly promoted to ship's captain due to their membership in a disfavored racial group or gender.(...)
Itâs a damn tough life full of toil and strife We whalermen undergo. And we donât give a damn when the day is done/gale has stopped How hard the winds did blow. âcause weâre homeward bound from the Arctic ground With a good ship, taut and free And we wonât give a damn when we drink our rum With the girls of Old Maui.
(Chorus) Rolling down to Old Maui, me boys Rolling down to Old Maui Weâre homeward bound from the Arctic ground Rolling down to Old Maui.
(...)
If this isn't grooming and pedophilia then what is ?
I consider myself pretty open-minded but not that "open" as it relates to the above.
I read the article above but didn't see her making the statement that the idea of exposing children to genitalia should be done to try and acclimate them to seeing transgender genitalia. Only that the doctor seems to be a proponent of transgender people participating in sports where they are not participating in their identified birth gender. So, I'm not sure how the connection to the two statements were made.
Not for nothing... but isn't the idea (of children seeing genitalia) been going on for years in nudist colonies? Not really too radical when viewed in that context but I am personally not comfortable with the idea.
Fascinating, since it hits two topics (genetics and coding) that I understand a little. What interested my was how she took the dry biological info, but used it in terms that coders could grasp, even down to suggesting to them that they were "makers," a term I see a lot near home. I took my boys to a Maker Fair and there were all sorts of robots, etc. My older boy recognized Woz at a book signing and went up to talk with him.
So a nerd coder might not have a background in biology or genetics (for shame) but she laid it on their plate using their vocabulary. Really well done. Much thanks!
Something else, because this is neither grooming nor pedophilia.
Aside from which it's an opinion from an obscure, college journalism professor in Canada - not some pending proposal or legislation in the US or recommendation from the US Dept. of Educ. or the AMA.
That's what schools are for. Wait...we don't want "teachers" talking about that... and we don't want kids to read anything about that... so it's up to the parents... Which I think was the whole point of the post (formerly known as tweet).
The irony of these concerns from the right... home of over 7,000 identified groomers (sorry...priests).
