Search Results for 'thor'
-
Search Results
-
How does ”reality prove” what is considered feminine or masculine? Men used to wear pantyhoses and dresses, was this some kind of false reality? Or could it be that society evolved and changed and that is now considered feminine? How exactly is it an objective reality that only females should paint their nails or wear makeup?
You are conflating, quite intentionally I am sure, the realities of sex with fashion and personality.
If you are born with a penis you are a man. If you are born with the hardware to produce life you are a woman. Period, full stop. What you wear, how you choose to adorn yourself or the specifics of what you like or don’t like has NO bearing on your sex.
Now, as intelligent beings, we have the power of observation. We can clearly see the world over that certain traits typically are associated with men and some with woman. We tag them masculine or feminine based on observation and not assignment. This does not mean their cannot be outliers, differences, and these things that might be outside the norm do not change your sex.
This idea that everything is a social constructs is obnoxiously shortsighted and it is used for manipulation. Because logically, if everything is a social construct then people are just identical cogs in a machine, a very communist ideal. And it also gives activists ,such as yourself, license to bang the drum of “let’s change it all as we see fit” because it’s tethered to nothing but societal pressure. This pours gas on the moral relativism fire that is currently tearing western society apart (which is the goal).
It doesn’t help, because you are biologically a gazelle and that is the only thing the lions see when they meet you.
Exactly, so “misgendering” is total nonsense. Glad we agree.
Yes, and if a person is described to you as someone who used to play with dolls, wears makeup, likes to wear a dress you would assume the person is a female because those are feminine traits, signaling of a female gender. But that person could be a man biologically, which is sex.
Well, we were speaking of children so you gear changed. Your hypothetical is not real. No one talks about people that way. Why? Because one of the first things mentioned about anyone in any conversation when you are being introduced to the idea of that person is whether they are male or female. No one describes their traits in that way. But let’s entertain it. If someone said that to me, I would assume probably a woman. Why? Because that is observable reality. No different than if I was told this person gave birth or could dead lift 500lbs. If I was introduced to this hypothetical person and I saw he was a man in a dress. Then I would know it was an outlier situation and that is just what he liked to do.
You can only be a man or woman “biologically” that’s a redundant term user to fool people into accepting the idea there is more than 1 type of man or woman. There is not. It matters not what you lop off or glue on. Under the hood, still the same.
I am inserting here a smarmy joke about religion, but that is another discussion for another time as it is irrelevant to this topic
I can respect that. But I would be remiss in my duties as someone who understands God exists to not mention having a relationship with God and religion are not only 2 very different things, sometimes they are antithetical to one another. But to your point, if we were talking about legislating or somehow forcing people to behave as if God exists such they HAD to act a certain way, it’s the same problem and the same encroachment on freedom. My freedom stops at the doorstep of your freedom regardless of the topic.
well I certainly don’t want anyone to get bullied for expressing traits of the opposite gender, so adding that to title IX sounds good to me.
Bullying was already wrong. Assault, harassment and other such things already illegal. Being ugly to someone at work already heavily frowned upon and that being systemic already a legal offense. So all you are doing is lapping up the tiny bit of pandering milk the Biden admin left out for you so you stay on their planation.
But as far as I know, you don’t get criminalized for not calling someone with cat pronouns or some shit like that. Correct me if I am wrong. And to be clear, I do not want it to become a punishable crime to call someone with wrong pronouns, that would be absurd.
I appreciate you being open to being incorrect and or additional info. That’s the difference between a conversation and an argument. And now I will inform you that you are entirely incorrect. New York and California have laws and guidance on this and others might as well but those 2 I know for sure. Outside of the US it’s far worse. In the UK for example. If you post a few tweets or whatever social media posts that are not illegal but considered “hateful”, the police show up at your door. This was a very public thing recently when Scotland enshrined a new “Hate Crime” law and JK Rowling, who is hard left, but considered a “transphobe” was already being reported. She publicly said to their police, “arrest me”. They did not. She pulled a Trump on them essentially and they backed down. This is also a law federally in Canada. The infamous Bill C-16. This was the first one and this is what brought Jordan Peterson out of the shadows talking publicly about how if made law the government can force you to say and do things against your will and it won’t stop there.
And you might ask yourself, how often used could this be? Enough for Lawyers to advertise it and speak about it and somehow they did so before the magical changes to title IX.
https://www.breslinlawgroup.com/blog/2023/10/2/is-misgendering-a-violation-of-state-or-federal-law
So I al happy we agree such legislation is a negative thing. But I am shocked that you cannot root out the cause and effect. This did not just start, it’s been going on and anyone should have been able to see where it was headed. The logical conclusion of this, if it keeps going, is the government now has the power to write law to compel speech and action. If you don’t see how these things are linked and where they go then I am not at all surprised you hear “slippery slope” and think “RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA!”.
there are many ways to be respectful. You can use pronouns when said person is in proximity, for example if you refer that person to a third person with you.
You know as well as I do how that is presented but its not how it’s used as I described so again, it’s social engineering nonsense and nothing more. I WILL NOT cede reality to anyone and I don’t care if you find it disrespectful or not. Not having a grasp on reality is a you problem, not a me problem. Expecting someone else to accept who you want to be when you cannot accept who you are is illogical and harmful to that person. Indulging people in fantasies is not respect and it is not compassion. It’s quite the opposite.
That’s very fat pride accepting of you. I would encourage people to be what they feel most comfortable being. If a person is fat but wants to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would say go to the gym and don’t stay miserable if you feel bad being as you are.
Fat pride is as illogical and harmful as is the gender nonsense. You cannot be anything than what you are. I see you buy fully into this thought process that if I think I am something, I am that something. Yet somehow an intelligent creator seems silly to you? And NO ONE is up in arms or talking about what people wish to consider themselves. People have their hair bristled up because they are being forced to say and do things to go along with someone else’s perception of themselves. But how very activist of you to conflate those 2 things.
I would rephrase it as ”I want the world to accept me the way I feel most comfortable in”.
See this is what makes me upset at this ideology. You (collective you) say things that sound compassionate and it makes people feel moral when they say it. The reality is if they were ACTUALLY compassionate they would scratch beyond the self aggrandizing platitudes and understand that indulging in fantasies not only hurts people but in this case it greatly harms society. You have young girls en masse latching onto this and doing things they regret to themselves in droves. This is not compassion. This is selfishness and in total indifference to the welfare of others.
by who? Pedophiles? And how much progress has it made? If pedophilia ever becomes more normalized and is actually getting momentum then I will stand next to you fighting against it with all my might, but I don’t see it happening.
I would sincerely hope we could fight together on many other things as well but I appreciate your point. And if you don’t see pedophilia being pushed (in the long and short term) then you are either not at all paying attention or you are lying. And yes, it is the pedophiles pushing it. Particularly the pedophiles who have hijacked parts of the “gay movement” and that to a large degree is how that’s all getting conflated which is not a coincidence. Pedophiles are trying to shield themselves under the gay umbrella. They are referring to pedophilia as another sexuality and trying to wash it clean with terms like “MAP” and “virtuous pedophile”. The unsettling part is, arguments used for normalizing homosexuality also work for pedophilia until you hit age of consent.
I am not sure how you don’t see this. There have been articles, new stories and so on. One in particular by Todd Nickerson on Salon that got so much backlash they removed it. But of course, the internet is forever. http://archive[DOT]is/ttVNy
This is being pushed from the edges consistently and eventually the edges will be the middle. It’s a hard push to sexualize children. Why do you think people are so against the drag queen thing around kids? There are countless videos of that stuff show young kids sexual things. The infamous story/pcis of the kids at a drag show with a large neon/LED sign on the stage saying “It’s not gonna lick itself”. So if you do not see all this, then you need to diversity your news sources.
They might use it as a shield but the moment they get caught they are going to be in jail. I could use a similar line of thought about molesting priests, but I think it is crucial to keep them separated and not mix just because they are trying to utilize the surrounding.
You keep whipping out religion as if like a vampire under the shadow of a Crucifix I will recoil. I won’t. You are barking up the wrong tree.
They use it as a shield. It works. And not they don’t arrested so long as they are using the shield. How many “drag queens” have been arrested for doing/showing sexual things to kids? If it is a reasonable thought to believe that someone would join the Priesthood to gain access to children, is it not also a reasonable thought someone would become a drag queen for the same reason at this stage of things? And yes, the Priest is no different than the “drag queen”. In fact, I consider the priest even more morally reprehensible because he not offends God while pretending to teach people about him and just leads people astray. Leading children astray is one of the few times in the New Testament where it gets real dark, real fast.
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” –Matthew 18:6, the speaker is Jesus himself
consent is key, which is what separates pedophilia from sexual orientations.
Again, the arguments for sexual orientations fits for pedophilia. As I see it the ONLY logical (not moral) separation is consent. But again man, draw it out to the logical conclusions. If a child can be sexually aware enough to “select” his or her sex, then consent to sex is the next stop on that train. And you might want to look at the thousands of children coming across the border and check into how they disappear and ponder the circumstances and where they end up.
Regarding gender affirming care for minors, in most places it is treated like cosmetic surgeries, meaning it is not for minors.
“gender affirming care” is a propaganda phrase and I reject it. This is only a construct if you play the mental game of “I believe therefore it is”. If you remove that illogical fallacy that ceases to exist. There is no reason to affirm what you are. Adults can do as they please so long as I am not paying for it. Children? Hell no that is monstrous.
Regarding minors with serious gender dysphoria, I am having a really high treshold for that because minors really should be protected from making wrong choices as they can not consent.
You are lapping up the propaganda as if you are a stray cat who has a saucer of fresh milk placed in front of them. Stop assuming what you see is correct or true. Stop exchanging your authority for the authority of others because they request you do so.
Gender Dysphoria is VERY rare. So it would stand that in minors even more rare or almost nonexistent if we think pre-puberty. And while you do have some internally confused kids out there, they generally work it out (80%+ I think I have seen) on their own discovering that they are simply gay. This phenomenon of gay=trans in kids is referred to (by gay groups) as “transing away the gay”.
The exception that some are fighting for is if someone has serious gender dysphoria, a surgery is treated like any medical (not cosmetic) surgery.
Children SHOULD NOT have surgeries on their private parts in this context. FULL STOP. PERIOD. Again, this is more propaganda. If we open the door to “well it’s OK in serious cases”, then “serious” get redefined. And this has already happened and you have some hospitals already doing this in the US. And yes, for minors. And yes in large numbers.
My opinion of this is still unclear, honestly. I believe cosmetic surgeries should be restricted for minors, therefore a minor should not be able to ”select their sex”.
My opinion is clear as day as I am sure you see. Is that because I heard someone say something or because someone told me to be against it? No, it’s because I take in information from all corners and I stew on it myself and work through the assertions and the claims in my own head.
And we agree, NO cosmetic surgery minors and that minors cannot “select their sex”. We agree 1000% percent.
But if I can see data on minors with gender dysphoria overcoming and living a happy life rather than depression or even suicide from gender dysphoria then I absolutely choose a happy minor over a dead minor, as in any health emergency operation for a minor. But there needs to be absolutely strong evidence for that, until then I will stay with my belief that minors should not have access to gender affirming care.
You won’t find that data because it does not exist. And even considering the paradigm of “if we don’t cut his man business off he will kill himself” is nonsense. This is more propaganda. It’s a thought trap scaring parents into these surgeries threatening them with the death of their child. It is emotional blackmail. And now you have places like California where a child WILL BE and HAS taken away from their parents by the state because the child requests transition in one form or another and the parents refuse. Do you not see the autonomy being assigned to children? Do you not think consent is not next to go?
I do not fall into these moral quagmires. I consider and or reject assertions I can personally observe that conflict with reality. (I saw this with the COVID vaccine nonsense, not immediately I was scared like everyone else at first and I actually saw COVID coming before most as I was keeping tabs on it in China) I do not accept without test and thought words and or info from “experts”. Authority is like offense. No one can force it upon you, you have to accept it.
As to all this gender stuff in general. I implore you to read about 2 things. John Money, where the modern trans nonsense is rooted that ended up with 2 dead people. You will CLEARLY see that your assertions of “society defines gender traits” is very wrong.
You should also read about the lobotomy. At the time heralded as a way to help mentally ill people and it was OK to destroy part of their brain because “science”. As I understand it, that is the previous time we treated mental illness with surgery. I do know of some experimental surgery for SERIOUS depression which involved an implant but you catch my drift I am sure.
I also refer you to this book written by an experienced professional in that specific field.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Trans-Nation-Psychiatrists-Madness/dp/B0CDJCSX2W/ref=sr_1_5?sr=8-5
“Trust The Science” seems to be the order of the day, even when it doesn’t make any common sense. People have to decide for themselves. It’s just a color revolution and sexual harassment trauma based mind control on the normal human citizenry. Clearly, the media and schools and institutions will go to any lengths to portray normal, every day people as bigots and will even make up the conditions for it, if they have to.
Behind the Rainbow/blue and pink flags, they do NOT want you talking about the staged protests all over the west by the groups their NGOs imported, right after fleecing our countries of billions and billions and billions of dollars. The protests will only lead to more ripoff. You could call it “Bibi-Nomics,” the sheer theft of the west from the hateful racists in authority.
‘Euthanasia pods’ are the logical conclusion for a culture of death
Exit International, the Australian-based international nonprofit organization that advocates the legalization of voluntary euthanasia has completed a prototype of a suicide capsule machine that it hopes to soon make available worldwide.
Just what the world does NOT need.
…the implications are revolting. Never before has suicide appeared more alluring or glamorous. A morbid photograph of an elated young woman sitting within the pod, smiling and waving, circulated on social media last month. The image was reminiscent of the final pictures taken of Heaven’s Gate cult members on the eve of their mass suicide in 1997.
Well, the elites/globalists want LESS humans, afterall.
Exit International’s pod is also novel in that it purportedly makes for a more pleasant dying experience than traditional euthanization methods. Pod users will not need to consume drugs to finish the deed but simply press a button that floods the chamber with nitrogen, which rapidly reduces oxygen levels. Within minutes, the individual will lose consciousness and die a “pleasant” death. This, according to Exit International, indicates real progress in “dying with dignity.”
Just like the Disintegration Chambers from Star Trek: TOS: “A Taste of Armageddon” episode.
“The person will feel a little disoriented and may feel slightly euphoric before they lose consciousness,” Exit Internation’s founder Philip Nitschke said. “The whole thing takes about 30 seconds. Death takes place through hypoxia and hypocapnia, oxygen and carbon dioxide deprivation, respectively. There is no panic, no choking feeling.”
For those willingly going into those chambers of death.
Better still, the pod can be produced using a 3D printer. Nitschke ultimately plans to make the blueprints available for anyone to download.
Oh nice.
A former physician, he has long sought to “de-medicalize” the dying process. This includes the psychiatric component of assisted suicide, which he believes limits the autonomy of the individual choosing to die.
Criminals and criminal organizations can now place people they want to get rid of into this chamber, and it does the killing for them.
Nitschke’s advocacy for the “right to die” goes beyond physician-assisted suicide and toward acceptance of voluntary euthanasia — the latter is distinguished from the former in that it doesn’t require the approval of medical or government authorities. The only requirement for voluntary euthanasia is a willing participant. Only then is the individual in “complete control” of their life and death, according to Nitschke.
People who know things the government does not want the public to find out can now get epsteined too. How convenient is that!
It doesn’t take a genius to see where this road leads — indeed, sleek, high-tech suicide pods are a logical end for a culture determined to denigrate the value of life and easily charmed by the glamorous and the new.
With the invention of the euthanasia pod, we should consider ourselves warned.
We know they wanted to die, we just need to give them that extra PUSH to die.
And nice how they don’t give an emergency escape option, if at the last moment you want to abort your death. At least the article does not mention such, nor how much time and resources it costs to make this device. And if it has the ability to call the local authorities that another one has bite the dust, and to come collect the dead body. No need to check if the person was drugged up or anything. They were in the chamber to “die”. Case file closed. Suicide. Move on, nothing to see here.
More like a blog post, I know. I would be interested in your opinion and thoughts on this.
When you walk into a bookstore, the books are not simply organised alphabetically, but by genre. Readers have preferences and expectations when it comes to stories or entertainment media. People are free to decide whether they want to read a thriller or a romance.
Over the centuries, archetypal narrative styles have been established that have proven to be particularly successful. Although these are not set in stone, they provide a good starting point for authors to follow an existing structure. When someone chooses a horror novel, they expect suspense, fear and horror. They don’t expect a bank robbery that has been carefully planned for half the book’s content. In a Heroes Journey, readers don’t expect the teasing wordiness used in romantic novels.
Every archetypal narrative has a certain division of important information about characters, setting and events. For a plot to work, every piece of information must be handpicked according to the genre. Too much relationship drama in a thriller? Too little swordplay in a medieval epic? The immersion is gone. The percentage split between action, emotion, dialogue, eroticism, etc. is a fine line that represents the preference of both authors and their readers within a genre.
One of the most important points when writing (consuming entertainment media) is not to waste the readers’ (consumers’) time with superfluous information. Character traits such as disabilities, sexual orientation, past events must serve a plot point, otherwise they are just empty words or fillers. The classic infodump. Readers perceive this unconsciously. If the main investigator of a crime novel has lost a leg due to a past accident, this must lead to problems in the plot that he has to solve. The investigator follows up a clue on his own in a remote wooded area and startles someone hiding in a bush. The suspect flees. He has to go after him. How does he solve the problem? Another aspect could be that his limitation leads to social problems or unacceptance that he has to deal with during his investigation. Creating conflict in a story in order to resolve it through the actions of the characters is one of the main reasons for an exciting, readable story. Limitations make a character human and identifiable, but have a duty to move the plot forward.
Just as information must have an impact on the plot, subplots must be integrated into the main plot at some point in the story. A side story that ends abruptly and has no connection to the main story leaves a feeling of wasted time. Readers have invested their time to learn more about a character. In a well-written story, they are rewarded by seeing that this knowledge has real value in the plot and is utilised. Each character is always the main character of their own story. And yet there is a main plot that must be linked to it. The finely tuned content of a story, the setting, the narrative style and many other aspects attract a certain group of interested consumers. If their expectations are met or exceeded, they become fans of a series or the author. Building a fanbase is easier said than done. It requires technical expertise in constructing a story and a lot of time revising and fine-tuning.
The author now has the task of delivering what their established fan base expects. If they fail to fulfil expectations, they risk losing fans. On the other hand, authors themselves want to grow in their creative process and explore new things. The author wants to take the life of a main character in a series in order to experience the course of the plot as a reaction to this drastic decision. From the point of view of artistic freedom, there is nothing wrong with this, but what do the fans say? In these moments, sensitivity is required. Because the author is playing with the trust placed in him by the readers. Such an immense decision must reward the readers in a different way. Developing the author’s creativity in such a drastic way is only possible if he is a master of his craft. In creative pursuits, it is important to play by the established rules until you understand so many nuances that rules can be broken for the better. This can result in wonderful new works. Such people are celebrated as virtuosos. However, if someone is not a master of their craft and breaks the rules anyway, incoherent works are created. These people are labelled incompetent because they are wasting people’s time. Nobody wants to be labelled incompetent for their efforts, which is something that more and more series and games are struggling with these days.
There seems to have been an agreement in the consumer world about the culprit. The woke culture. While it has many different aspects, some of them are noticeably finding their way into the mainstream media. One of the cornerstones is to provide a safe space for marginalised groups from different walks of life. This safespace also includes people with characteristics that make it difficult to live in today’s society due to anxiety disorders, borderline, depression or sexual orientation. Safespaces, which are known from therapies, serve to exclude certain triggers, for example in the case of experienced traumas, as far as possible so that methods can be developed to lead a normal life outside the safespace. The aim is therefore to leave this safespace again. In the woke culture, people within these self-created safespaces are given special attention, which seems positive at first glance. The question now is, when will they leave it again? Another question could be: why would they want to leave it again? People who live in an environment where others pay very close attention to their choice of words and behaviour so as not to set off triggers develop a tendency towards narcissism outside of a professional therapeutic setting. The goal is no longer to leave the safespace, but to expand it. Instead of promoting the idea of diversity (marginalised groups) to naturally integrate into other groups, the demand is made that other groups in society accept and apply the established safespaces. There is no need to discuss the fact that any kind of demand that disrupts the integrity of a group will be met with resistance. So what does this mean for series and games that make this kind of demand? At this point, a parasitic behaviour can be observed in which existing and successful IP are used as hosts to force an expansion of safespaces. The Witcher series, Rings of Power, …
Based on the above text, here are a few questions that need to be answered when using established source material from series or games:- Do changes in characters (skin colour, etc.) have any relevance in the plot?
- Is new information (mention of sexual orientation, etc.) relevant to the plot?
- Do new side stories (homosexual couple, etc.) flow meaningfully into the main plot?
- Are the expectations of existing fans met?
If even one of the questions is answered with ‘no’, the creators are already taking a risk of producing an incoherent work and outing themselves as incompetent because they are wasting consumers’ time.
People judge themselves by their intentions, but others by their actions.
Instead of labelling the creators of incoherent works as incompetent, descriptions such as ‘courageous’ are used in the inner circles of the woke. Their intention is a good one. Namely, the inclusion of marginalised groups in successful franchises. What their actions have ultimately produced is therefore less relevant. At this point, consumers are not looking at their laudable intention, but the result of the inconsistent string of storylines. The situation now arises where viewers intuitively reject the incoherent works, a group of like-minded woke people encourage the incompetent and the incompetent see themselves confirmed in their actions, which further promotes the narcissism described above. Instead of drawing conclusions from the decisions made and learning from them, methods are used to maintain the safespaces. Gaslighting, concealment of facts, threats, online harassment are just some of the actions.
The debates that erupt on social media as a result are anything but constructive. Part of the reason for this is the internet itself. Because it is particularly good at two things.
- Grouping people with the same ideas together
- Presenting content that makes you particularly angry
The basic principle is to bind consumers to their devices for as long as possible. As long as a person is consuming media, someone in the world is making money from it. The interest in binding people to their devices for a particularly long time is therefore very high. This can be achieved by exposing people to content that provokes some kind of action. Either to support like-minded people or to fight against an enemy. Hate is one of the best bonding agents. When someone deeply hates another person, it stays with them all day in their mind. If people with the same mindset come together and expose themselves to content that makes them particularly angry as a collective, what effect does this have within the group? Radicalisation.
Although radicalisation is a hard word, the way it works is clear. This applies not only to woke groups, but also to any other. Over time, any group that exists long enough will develop its share of extremists. It is the job of any group to keep order internally. At the end of the day, in a society that is characterised and sustained by a wide variety of groups, people have to ensure that their own group participates in life together with others. One approach would be to exclude these extremists from their own circles. Of course, new, smaller groups will then form, consisting only of these extremists. It is then the task of the authorities to keep an eye on them in order to prevent worse things from happening. In the case of the woke culture, however, this is a problem of its own. Because what happens when these extremists are inside a safespace? Exclusion from the safespace would set a precedent that ensures that anyone who steps out of line can simply be excluded. This would render a safespace as such obsolete and destroy one of its cornerstones.
Another aspect of the woke culture is the special emphasis placed on sexuality as a feature of identity. People are complex beings. Sexuality is just one of many characteristics. In terms of entertainment media, the romance genre in particular lends itself to exploring sexuality as a primary plot point in a story. People who go into a bookshop and want exactly that are looking for the romance category, they don’t go to the sci-fi thriller shelf. Why is that? The expectation of the plot of a romantic comedy is different compared to a sci-fi thriller. So if the aspect of sexuality as a character’s identity is particularly important to the plot, then the correct choice and marketing of genre is essential. If an epic adventure is marketed and fifty per cent of the content deals with the discovery of the protagonist’s sexuality, then this causes confusion and resentment. After all, as mentioned at the beginning, archetypal storytelling has become established. In contrast, when a love story is marketed and fifty per cent of the content is about the slaughter of orc warriors, it also creates a bad atmosphere. The principle of invasive expansion of the safespace of woke extremists also applies here. It is not the violation of the expected content according to the established genre that leads to controversy, but the supposed unacceptance of sexual diversity. Viewers judge the actions of the creators and see a discrepancy between marketing and expected content. Their intention is to experience meaningfully coherent stories. Woke people judge their intention as noble and see the actions of the viewers, i.e. the unacceptance, as a rejection of diversity.
