Bhurzum wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑Indeed, though others including Paul Graham - first link more or less courtesy of SD - and Mark Twain did the same, earlier and much earlier: <snip>
You can be the world's greatest thinker, an outstanding philosopher, a top-notch scientist and all-round nice guy but none of that, not one bit, will save your hide when confronted by a pissed up scheme denizen who has decided he doesn't like your face.
Yup, he'll be a product of bullshit tribalism, will be using pub-gladiator antics to fill the void where his sense of self worth should be
and he'll be a knuckle-dragging fuckwit, too.
I'm sure this knowledge will be of great comfort to you as they stitch up your face, cut the broken tooth fragments out of your lips and attempt to save your impacted testicle.
(just saying)
;-)
But point taken; I hear ya.
Though it's partly a case of choosing one's battles. I, of course, have championed the idea of calling a spade a shovel - or a nigger as the case may be - as part and parcel of my "nigger-cunt hypothesis", but I'm not so fatalistic or suicidal as to walk into Harlem wearing nothing but a billboard with nothing on it but "nigger" - as John McClane famously did in one of the "Die Hard" movies.
But I've also championed the idea of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander. Which means - or should have meant if far too many of our police and judicial departments, particularly in the UK, hadn't been co-opted by transgender and LGBTQ ... & XYZ dogma - that that "pissed up scheme denizen" should have been in the emergency department himself reflecting on the "wisdom" of that particular type of behaviour. Clearly, he and his ilk should have been, would have been in days of yore crucified from one end of the Appian way to the other; clearly, the Roman Empire started to go down the tubes once they started in on "kinder, gentler" forms of punishment ... ;-) Though part of their problem was in using such punishments for less than salutary or edifying "reasons".
But choosing one's battles, or battlefields is the crux of the matter; I remember watching, decades ago, a BBC special on the
Battle of Culloden wherein "The two armies eventually met at Culloden, on terrain that gave Cumberland's larger, well-rested force the advantage"; almost enough to make a die-hard Unionist reconsider his allegiances ... ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden
And proverbially speaking, the pen is often mightier than the sword - even sometimes as an actual weapon, particularly if one pokes one's opponent in the eye with it. But not sure if you looked at the quote of Solzhenitsyn I had linked to earlier, but some justification to argue that he contributed substantially to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 or thereabouts - a rather Frankensteinian monster that Putin seems bound and determined to reanimate:
I’ve found Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s bare-minimum standard of “personal non-participation in lies” valuable here:
And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!
https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/ ... use-to-say
Amen to that. And, rather sadly, a great deal of society these days is absolutely riven with no end of outright lies, none more odious and toxic than those undergirding much of the transgender clusterfuck. Which many people "participate in" by not speaking out against them - at least in venues outside of those hosting "pub-gladiator contests" ... ;-) And none, arguably, more in evidence than in Scotland - see, for several examples, an article in The Herald, and the Scottish Government's definition of "woman":
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... l-panic%2F
https://www.gov.scot/publications/indep ... e/pages/4/
Independent Strategic Review of Funding and Commissioning of Violence Against Women and Girls Services: call for evidence
Footnotes
1. Women means anyone who defines themselves as a woman. ....
So, anyone who "self-identifies as a woman", regardless of whether they're sporting testicles or an ersatz neo-vagina under the hood, is, ipso facto, a woman? Can't reasonably pass laws that are based on contradictory definitions - rank insanity; the Scottish government, and - sadly - far too many others might just as well pass laws stipulating that "2+2=5" and that "2+2=4".
It's "nice" that
The Herald article at least quotes various Scottish politicians - at least some of the Tory persuasion who haven't been entirely co-opted by transgender dogma - who acknowledge that "It’s clear women have deep concerns over these proposed reforms.” But the author of the article is clearly pandering to the SNP party line - the Big Lie; Hitler and Goebbels would have been impressed - that sex and gender are synonymous:
A gender recognition certificate is used to legally change a trans person’s sex on their birth certificate – aimed at helping them be recognised as who they truly are, including when they marry, pay their taxes, receive their pension and have their death recorded.
No one - no human - changes their sex. At least if one wants to subscribe to the more rational biological definitions; why would we want to subscribe to other ones? But giving any sort of endorsement or credence, much less the time of day, to those peddling such odious and toxic schlock has to qualify as a crime of the century, a medical scandal of the first water on par with the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
Be silent in the face of that? Don't think so, at least not on my watch.