Steerzing in a New Direction...

[Steersman]

Love it when a potential employer warns me off early. Mutual sanity check call with the in house recruiter went well. "Next step? Please fill out this online application and we will get the ball rolling for some interviews next week."

Gender was a dropdown: agender, bigender, cisgender female, cisgender male, genderfluid, genderqueer, my identity is not listed, nonbinary, nonconfirming <sp>, transgender

The dogs started barking. Danger Zone started playing. My first square in Minesweeper was an 8. Yep, time to back away slowly.

Definitely dodged a bullet ;)

Rather depressing the ubiquity of that gender schlock. Why it's rather important to differentiate gender - what is little better than personalities - from sex. Profoundly ridiculous to think that, equivalently, we should have separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts.

[another lurker]

Every season has an end

[Matt Cavanaugh]

My first square in Minesweeper was an 8.

:lol:

[Service Dog]

the Columbia brewery: "Brewed right. In the Kooteneys."

Odd coincidence... You post that obscure word/ shortly afterward I'm listening to this music freak guy on youtube... with a Hot Wheels Kootenai County cop car... on his album cover. The song ain't great. But he makes great music gear from junk.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

it's been 8+ fucking years and no one here was able to weaponize Steerz autism

Maybe his posts could be used as blockchains to create mine bitcoins.

"Mine." Cuz when you make nothing out of nothing but it somehow is valued as something, that's just like digging useful stuff out of the ground.

[Steersman]

the Columbia brewery: "Brewed right. In the Kooteneys."

Odd coincidence... You post that obscure word/ shortly afterward I'm listening to this music freak guy on youtube... with a Hot Wheels Kootenai County cop car... on his album cover. The song ain't great. But he makes great music gear from junk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckQ_WO4H9d8

https://youtu.be/CXk6njr9RTI

Synchronicity. :-)

Don't know anything about the music but the Kootenay (or Kootenai) river is a major system in the pacific northwest, going through BC, Idaho, and Montana.

Has figured in several major movies: The Revenant, The River Wild, & The Legend of Kootenai Brown.

[Brive1987]

For the first time ever, I feel 🇦🇺 is more likely to cope a nuke in the foreseeable future than either Germany or the UK.

Thanks 🇨🇳 💥

[MarcusAu]

:cdc:

Rather a divisive statement.

There are those that think the C.D.C won't resolve anything...

[MarcusAu]

Profoundly ridiculous to think that, equivalently, we should have separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts.

So are you pro or 'agin it?

Because I don't see that profound ridiculousness should be any kind of disincentive for people to associate as they please.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

it's been 8+ fucking years and no one here was able to weaponize Steerz autism

Maybe his posts could be used as blockchains to create mine bitcoins.

"Mine." Cuz when you make nothing out of nothing but it somehow is valued as something, that's just like digging useful stuff out of the ground.

As opposed to scribbling in a ledger and firing up the printer?

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

For the first time ever, I feel 🇦🇺 is more likely to cope a nuke in the foreseeable future than either Germany or the UK.

Thanks 🇨🇳 💥

Don't stress, Joe's neocon handlers are hard at work restoring tensions between Nato and Russia.

[Keating]

For the first time ever, I feel 🇦🇺 is more likely to cope a nuke in the foreseeable future than either Germany or the UK.

Thanks 🇨🇳 💥

The worst part is that we deserve it

[fafnir]

For the first time ever, I feel 🇦🇺 is more likely to cope a nuke in the foreseeable future than either Germany or the UK.

Thanks 🇨🇳 💥

The worst part is that we deserve it

Didn't Mel Gibson make a series of documentaries about this timeline in the 70s and 80s? Who runs Bartertown?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

As opposed to scribbling in a ledger and firing up the printer?

Good point.

The reason the neolibs are so freaked out over crypto is, they were planning converting everything to it for their own ends.

The Biden admin just withdrew its nominee for Comptroller of the Currency, Saule Omarova, a soviet-born & raised closet commie who advocates banning all private banks, with everyone's bank accounts held by the Federal Reserve.

Then they do away with cash, so no transaction can go unmonitored.

Then they start blocking transactions they disapprove of.

Then they start docking your account for ideological transgressions. Or freeze the accounts of, say, the unvaxxed.

Then they start deducting mandatory donations to approved causes.

Then they credit you with crypto dollars yuan for good behavior and rightthink.


The only thing that surprises me at this point is, they brazenly tried to slip Omarova through.

[John D]

I believe that vaccinating children for the coof is a really bad idea. This guest (Dr. Peter McCullough) of Bret agrees with me.... and his evidence is very compelling.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Young Dems more likely to despise the other party

dems hate.png

(366.21 KiB) Downloaded 180 times

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I believe that vaccinating children for the coof is a really bad idea. This guest (Dr. Peter McCullough) of Bret agrees with me.... and his evidence is very compelling.

One compelling argument against I just read about: children have very robust immune systems, which the jab permanently cripples. So those kids will be forever more susceptible to infections as well as autoimmune diseases.

A whole lotta vax pushers seriously need to be lined up and shot.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The Beaver announces "no end" to compulsory vaccinations -- it's boosters ad infinitum:

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

As opposed to scribbling in a ledger and firing up the printer?

Good point.

The reason the neolibs are so freaked out over crypto is, they were planning converting everything to it for their own ends.

The Biden admin just withdrew its nominee for Comptroller of the Currency, Saule Omarova, a soviet-born & raised closet commie who advocates banning all private banks, with everyone's bank accounts held by the Federal Reserve.

Then they do away with cash, so no transaction can go unmonitored.

Then they start blocking transactions they disapprove of.

Then they start docking your account for ideological transgressions. Or freeze the accounts of, say, the unvaxxed.

Then they start deducting mandatory donations to approved causes.

Then they credit you with crypto dollars yuan for good behavior and rightthink.


The only thing that surprises me at this point is, they brazenly tried to slip Omarova through.

I very strongly disagree with your characterisation of Omarova. There is nothing closeted about her commieness. I'm more surprised at her being withdrawn than her being nominated. Usually a few Republicans point out some statements or actions by the candidate which in a Western democracy should be immediately disqualifying and the Dems look on with an air of contempt and say "fuck you".

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

As opposed to scribbling in a ledger and firing up the printer?

Good point.

The reason the neolibs are so freaked out over crypto is, they were planning converting everything to it for their own ends.

The Biden admin just withdrew its nominee for Comptroller of the Currency, Saule Omarova, a soviet-born & raised closet commie who advocates banning all private banks, with everyone's bank accounts held by the Federal Reserve.

Then they do away with cash, so no transaction can go unmonitored.

Then they start blocking transactions they disapprove of.

Then they start docking your account for ideological transgressions. Or freeze the accounts of, say, the unvaxxed.

Then they start deducting mandatory donations to approved causes.

Then they credit you with crypto dollars yuan for good behavior and rightthink.


The only thing that surprises me at this point is, they brazenly tried to slip Omarova through.

One of the strengths of crypto is that there are no accounts, there is no centralised control of anything and transactions are anonymous. That may be optimistic given advances in processing power and US federal determination to control everyone, but it's the accepted truth though and there are cryptos designed to defeat quantum computing. That's one of the reasons they are so determined to kill crypto. Their version of a digital currency will not feature the key privacy advantages of a blockchain-implemented currency. It's a straight up fight between authoritarians and civil liberties, between people who believe that everyone should be snooped on for the public good and those who believe the state needs probable cause and transparent judicial approval before getting nosey. No doubt the US Feds will use something like the Patriot Act to go after whomsoever they wish and hide the fact.

[Steersman]

Profoundly ridiculous to think that, equivalently, we should have separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts.

So are you pro or 'agin it?

Because I don't see that profound ridiculousness should be any kind of disincentive for people to associate as they please.

'Agin it! "“Fifty-four forty or fight!" ;)

https://www.ushistory.org/us/29b.asp

That analogy may not have been the best one or as well-phrased as it might have been - think it was rather late when I made it - but I think the principle is a sound one. No doubt people can "associate as they please", but one might reasonably argue that transwomen in women's sports is a rather egregious case of male transvestites - or sexless eunuchs as the case may be - trying to prevent "women" - though "vagina-havers" or "XXers" is probably the more accurate, and sensible, categorization - from trying to do so themselves, i.e., to "associate" as they please. And an association for which there is a great deal of justification, there being significant biological differences that have some bearing on the fairness and safety of various sports.

The fact of the matter is that many transwomen claim to have "transitioned to female" - an egregious case of equivocation if not an outright fraud - which is their pretext, and that of various "useful idiots" that follow in their train - for claiming the right to play in "women's" sports.

In case you, or any others here, missed reading my latest article on the topic - or at least missed knowing about it ;-) - here's the link again:

https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikipedi ... 0901a22da2

The Coles Notes version is that the Wikipedia article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard claimed that "she" - despite "her" apparent possession of testicles and the rest of the package - had "transitioned to female". While the article coyly - though "fraudulently" is more accurate - suggests that "female" is being used as a gender, the most that the concept of "gender" might lay claim to is little better than what might be construed as personalities and personality types. So the upshot there is that someone claiming to have a personality or personality type typical of "adult human females" - or reasonable facsimiles thereof - gets to play in a sports league designated for the more or less sole use of those with a far better, even if not perfect, claim to the title.

More less equivalent, as I had tried to suggest, to creating separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts. Or any of the myriad of personality types that have been identified so far - Jung had 8, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator system has 16.

"Criminal" hardly does justice to that state of affairs. May not entirely agree with Matt's choice of targets for his "vaxers should be shot", but have some sympathy for that penalty for the Wikipedians, and their ilk, who are responsible for that article. And for the sports groups who implement the related policies. All predicated on the view that personalities - "gender identity" :x :roll: - is the same as biological sex.

Hard to believe that more people aren't up in arms about that state of affairs.

[Service Dog]

you had earlier posted a "it's not going to happen" JPG presumably or apparently in response to my suggestion that menopausees could be considered "honorary females". Which seems rather inconsistent with your supposed/claimed endorsement of the standard definitions for "female" and "woman" as "produces ova" and "adult human female" - speaking out of both sides of your mouth? Tsk, tsk.

You and virtually every other Pitter seem desperately committed to the view that both are matters of "immutable identities" based on some mythic essence - little better than articles of faith, than egregious cases of "magical thinking". Rather like the transloonie nutcases; pots, kettles.

As I had mentioned earlier, Helen Staniland in a Graham Linehan YouTube video had described the transactivists thusly:
“emotional involvement like they feel that their very identity is as stake”

Seem my comment for a time-stamp.

But that seems pretty much exactly how you and most women see "woman" and "female", as identities instead of the more rational view that those words "merely" describe those possessing quite transitory biological capabilities in the reproductive department.

Beth, Elizabeth, Helen, Susie and all of their many "sisters" aren't merely the appendages of the borg called "woman" with as little autonomy; they're individuals with various transitory abilities.

That so many people are unable or unwilling to recognize that dichotomy highlights and underlines the "virulent anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments" that is pervasive and quite problematic.

I posted a subtitled still image-- alluding-to this well-known running-gag in the movie Mean Girls:



Two hypotheses:

1.) The Service Dog Hypothesis: I found it humorous to compare Steersman to the girl who tries-too-hard to be cool-- by unilaterally coining the slang term 'fetch'. A gambit which backfires-- as she merely displays her lack of #influencer status, and she is called-out & humiliated... by an actual popular-girl tastemaker.

2.) The Steersman Hypothesis: I posted the image because I am "desperately committed to" "mythic" gender essentialism... and I "feel that my very identity is at stake"... and I harbor ""virulent anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments"


Fortunately, humans have developed tools of reasoning to determine which of these hypotheses is least-unlikely, better evidenced, less tenuous. And any competent person can easily discern which is which.

[Service Dog]

Hillary Clinton's $15 "Masterclass" video series includes her reading her 2016 victory speech, celebrating her triumphant defeat of Republican candidate Donald Trump.


.
.
.

► Show Spoiler

.
.
.

[another lurker]

I believe that vaccinating children for the coof is a really bad idea. This guest (Dr. Peter McCullough) of Bret agrees with me.... and his evidence is very compelling.

One compelling argument against I just read about: children have very robust immune systems, which the jab permanently cripples. So those kids will be forever more susceptible to infections as well as autoimmune diseases.

A whole lotta vax pushers seriously need to be lined up and shot.

Those who are pushing the vaxx on children are evil.

[Steersman]

I believe that vaccinating children for the coof is a really bad idea. This guest (Dr. Peter McCullough) of Bret agrees with me.... and his evidence is very compelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zg1j7Zquoc

I don't know about "really bad idea" though the statistics suggest that it may not be particularly cost-effective:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/119 ... by-age-us/

Of 800k deaths so far in the US, less than 1000 of those are in the zero to 17 year range.

But you may wish to check out the "credentials" of McCullough:

In April 2020, McCullough led a study of the antimalarial medication hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 for the Baylor Scott & White Medical Center. McCullough told The Wall Street Journal that the urgency of the public health crisis justified compromises on best practices in medical research.[26][27] In July, after major studies found hydroxychloroquine was ineffective against COVID-19 and the Food and Drug Administration revoked its emergency use authorization (EUA), McCullough supported a second EUA. ....

COVID-19 misinformation
Some of McCullough's public statements contributed to the spread of COVID-19 misinformation.[9][42]

McCullough testified before a committee of the Texas Senate in March 2021, posted to YouTube by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, in which he made false claims about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, including that people under 50 years of age and survivors do not need the vaccine and that there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19.[23]

Posted on the Canadian online video sharing platform Rumble, McCullough gave an interview in April 2021 to The New American, the magazine of the conservative John Birch Society, in which he advanced anti-vaccination messaging, including falsely claiming tens of thousands of fatalities attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines. ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

[John D]

Sounds like McCullough has been more right than wrong. Thanks for the confirmation Steers.

[Steersman]

https://i.imgur.com/KIe623H.jpg

you had earlier posted a "it's not going to happen" JPG presumably or apparently in response to my suggestion that menopausees could be considered "honorary females". Which seems rather inconsistent with your supposed/claimed endorsement of the standard definitions for "female" and "woman" as "produces ova" and "adult human female" - speaking out of both sides of your mouth? Tsk, tsk.

You and virtually every other Pitter seem desperately committed to the view that both are matters of "immutable identities" based on some mythic essence - little better than articles of faith, than egregious cases of "magical thinking". Rather like the transloonie nutcases; pots, kettles.

As I had mentioned earlier, Helen Staniland in a Graham Linehan YouTube video had described the transactivists thusly:
“emotional involvement like they feel that their very identity is as stake”

See my comment for a time-stamp.

But that seems pretty much exactly how you and most women see "woman" and "female", as identities instead of the more rational view that those words "merely" describe those possessing quite transitory biological capabilities in the reproductive department.

Beth, Elizabeth, Helen, Susie and all of their many "sisters" aren't merely the appendages of the borg called "woman" with as little autonomy; they're individuals with various transitory abilities.

That so many people are unable or unwilling to recognize that dichotomy highlights and underlines the "virulent anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments" that is pervasive and quite problematic.

I posted a subtitled still image-- alluding-to this well-known running-gag in the movie Mean Girls:

https://youtu.be/Sir_24duiF4

In response to my "honorary females", you had SAID, "Stacking the scare quotes on top of the adjective is like using a double-negative." And then followed that up with a JPG of some broad saying, "It's not going to happen".

Not sure what else one might infer from that except that you're unwilling to accept the argument that menopausees are only honorary females. At best.

Nor am I sure makes you "think" that I or anyone else is going to have a clue as to what else you might have had in mind. You might think that everyone knows the context & tenuous implications of a rather obscure scene from a rather obscure picture of some 20 years ago, but you might try thinking otherwise.

Two hypotheses:

1.) The Service Dog Hypothesis: I found it humorous to compare Steersman to the girl who tries-too-hard to be cool-- by unilaterally coining the slang term 'fetch'. A gambit which backfires-- as she merely displays her lack of #influencer status, and she is called-out & humiliated... by an actual popular-girl tastemaker.

Those might be the "thought" processes that occur in your mind, but what makes you think that I or anyone else is a mind reader?

You seriously "think" - if anything that happens in your "mind" might be construed as thinking - that I personally am "unilaterally coining" the definitions for the sexes?

See below for the proof that that is anything but the case.

2.) The Steersman Hypothesis: I posted the image because I am "desperately committed to" "mythic" gender essentialism... and I "feel that my very identity is at stake"... and I harbor ""virulent anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments"

Considering the standard biological definitions - endorsed by most credible dictionaries, encyclopedias and biologists, do menopausees qualify as "adult human females" or not? Do prepubescent "girls" qualify as females?

Oxford_Definitions_Female.jpg

(41.6 KiB) Downloaded 140 times

MolecularReproduction_Lehtonen_Parker_DefinitionProduces_2A.jpg

(35.66 KiB) Downloaded 141 times

Sex is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in animals and plants that propagate their species through sexual reproduction. The type of gametes produced by an organism define its sex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

"virulently anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments", indeed.

If the foo shits, ...

Fortunately, humans have developed tools of reasoning to determine which of these hypotheses is least-unlikely, better evidenced, less tenuous. And any competent person can easily discern which is which.

:roll: Doubt you would recognize the "tools of reasoning" if you fell over any of them.

[Steersman]

Sounds like McCullough has been more right than wrong. Thanks for the confirmation Steers.

And your spreadsheet showing that "more right than wrong" is where? :roll:

But thanks for "confirming" which camp you're most willing to throw your lot in with.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Hillary Clinton's $15 "Masterclass" video series includes her reading her 2016 victory speech, celebrating her triumphant defeat of Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Where I grew up, there was a practice known as 'Skitching' (a portmanteau of 'skiing' and 'hitching.') During a snow storm, one would grab onto the back of a passing vehicle and let it tow you down the snow-covered road. You could get injured, possible killed, or at a minimum roughed up by a truck driver who caught you. it was incredibly foolish, yet some of my friends were avid skitchers -- beat trudging slowly through the snow drifts.

I see Hillary as a life-long political skitcher. Starting out, she adulated her father and rode his coattails into (at the time, GOP) politics. Then she skitched off Bill for a very long time, playing helpmeet to his ambitions. She accepted that Bill would hump anything with two X chromosomes and on two legs (and the legs were probably a nice-to-have), so long as he dragged her along, into roles and positions she hadn't earned on her own. She skitched into the US Senate, but wiped out in the 2008 primary when Obama was anointed. Just as she had mutely taken Bill's philandering, she took the Dem Party's abuse of her. She skitched into SOS, then again took Obama's abuse when he saddled her with Benghazi.

After all that patient, passive playing of the game, she figured she'd finally be rewarded with the presidency in 2016 after decades of skitching interspersed with wipeouts and beatdowns. It would also be her last opportunity, but she'd paid the dues and so it belonged to her now.

And she lost to That Man. And it fucking shattered her psyche. She's completely nuts at this point, stuck in Election night 2016.

[Service Dog]

In response to my "honorary females", you had SAID, "Stacking the scare quotes on top of the adjective is like using a double-negative." ....
Not sure what else one might infer from that except that you're unwilling to accept the argument that menopausees are only honorary females.

I pointed-and-laughed at your grammar.

You've invested your one short life on this earth-- to being a complete numbnuts about the dictionary definition of a word... and then, when you try to use that word in a sentence...

you somehow manage to double-negative grammarfail... saying the Exact Opposite of what you've been preaching, all this time.

You could infer NOTHING: just take my reply at face-value... as a gentle, friendly admonishment... take note of your grammar error & not repeat the mistake.

Or, perhaps you could ask a neurotypical adult human to infer my words for-you... and they would correctly infer that I was Mocking Your Faux Pas. And then you could decide whether to laugh-along, or be indignant about it.

Or, you could do what you actually did... which is "infer from that ... that you're unwilling to accept the argument that menopausees are only honorary females."

Now, mind you, infering-that requires you to IGNORE the prima facia evidence of me telling-you repeatedly, that, I accept your technical definition as correct.

And it also requires that you must successfully READ MY MIND...


AND, in the example of the Mean Girls movie quote meme, you have already admitted that you are utterly incapable of READING MY MIND... so, stop trying you fucking idiot! Either take my words at face-value/ or ask an adult to help you 'infer'/ or ask me to illuminate with further clarification...

but for the love of God In Heaven Hallowed Be Thy Name... Do Not do the one thing you so-badly want to do: launch into another of your boring, trite, Spinning Dancer digressions, with pictures & arrows & a paragraph from Wikipedia on the back of each one.

Or go-ahead & do it... be the lolcow that never stops farting comedy-gold eggs.

[Steersman]

In response to my "honorary females", you had SAID, "Stacking the scare quotes on top of the adjective is like using a double-negative." ....
Not sure what else one might infer from that except that you're unwilling to accept the argument that menopausees are only honorary females.

I pointed-and-laughed at your grammar.

You've invested your one short life on this earth-- to being a complete numbnuts about the dictionary definition of a word... and then, when you try to use that word in a sentence...

you somehow manage to double-negative grammarfail... saying the Exact Opposite of what you've been preaching, all this time. ....

You're blathering mate. Let me know when you think you have enough intellectual honesty to answer my questions:

Considering the standard biological definitions - endorsed by most credible dictionaries, encyclopedias and biologists, do menopausees qualify as "adult human females" or not? Do prepubescent "girls" qualify as females?

I'm not holding my breath ...

[another lurker]

[another lurker]

Thread. Social media is evil.

[another lurker]

In response to my "honorary females", you had SAID, "Stacking the scare quotes on top of the adjective is like using a double-negative." ....
Not sure what else one might infer from that except that you're unwilling to accept the argument that menopausees are only honorary females.

I pointed-and-laughed at your grammar.

You've invested your one short life on this earth-- to being a complete numbnuts about the dictionary definition of a word... and then, when you try to use that word in a sentence...

you somehow manage to double-negative grammarfail... saying the Exact Opposite of what you've been preaching, all this time. ....

You're blathering mate. Let me know when you think you have enough intellectual honesty to answer my questions:

Considering the standard biological definitions - endorsed by most credible dictionaries, encyclopedias and biologists, do menopausees qualify as "adult human females" or not? Do prepubescent "girls" qualify as females?

I'm not holding my breath ...

Steers' entire MO is "blathering"


PS I still luv ya mate

[Service Dog]

Considering the standard biological definitions - endorsed by most credible dictionaries, encyclopedias and biologists, do menopausees qualify as "adult human females" or not? Do prepubescent "girls" qualify as females?

I agree with the thing you're attempting* to say.

(*Doing-so requires me to overlook your continued-use of self-contradictory wording & grammar. You remain incapable of actually stating your thesis in a sentence which is free-of internal contradictions. But I already tried to help you with that self-inflicted problem. And you rejected my help. So... I'll overlook the defective semantics of your semantic argument. I'll steelman your argument as-if you phrased it properly. I'll agree with what you intended to say.)

Of course, on prior occasions, your same-old query & my affirmative response have already-been asked-and-answered.
https://trial.laws.com/objection/asked-and-answer

Thus far, agreeing with you does nothing to move the conversation forward, because:

1. you refuse to believe I agreed,

2. you soon forget I agreed/ and lump me back-in with those who disagree,

and

3. faced with the dire prospect of me actually-agreeing with you-- you even downplayed your own idée fixe! :doh:
10 days ago: "But that you agreed with me on one point is hardly a get-out-of-jail-free card." --Steersman

Also 10 days ago:



In that very same exchange, right-after offering excuses for your forgetfulness, *you* accused *me* of having a "drug-addled memory". :rimshot:

3 days ago, you scoffed at those who agree with you as merely "genuflecting" agreement. :rimshot:

2 days ago, you referred to my explicit, repeated agreement with-you as mere "supposed endorsement". :rimshot:


You're like a prisoner in GITMO who wails & moans-- when the guards *refuse* to piss on his Koran.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

For my fellow conspiracy theorists

Leaked US government documents show Wuhan scientists were studying viral strain found in bats which is near-identical to Covid-19 in latest lab-leak evidence

[Service Dog]

:flags-canada: :flags-canada: :flags-canada: :flags-canada: :flags-canada: :flags-canada: :flags-canada: :flags-canada:

Ontario Parliament Member Rick Nicholls asks Minister of Health Christine Elliott to address the TWENTYEIGHT-FOLD spike in stillbirths among vaccinated mothers.



In-depth commentary:

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/28x- ... le?r=o7iqo

[Service Dog]

Last night I watched chunks of 2 Kyle Rittenhouse interviews-- with rightwing infotainers. One interview was with Charlie Kirk. The other was with some vapid California lizards who I've never seen-before, at The Blaze.

The weight of being-prosecuted has clearly lifted, and-- for the first time I've seen-- the kid has a buoyant demeanor.

On one hand-- displaying his appealing personality-- for all the world to see-- is a good antidote to the hateful monster image fabricated & disseminated as Fake News by 'the Cathedral'.

On the other hand-- he's giving his enemies fresh ammo to further defame him. For example, they point-to him laughing at the absurdity of the trial-- and use that to claim his crying on the witness-stand was bogus.

I think the infotainers need him... far-more than he needs them. If he wants to remain in the public eye, I hope he finds his own platform, as his own man, voicing his own views, rather than serving someone-else's narrative.

Good time to rotate my avatar.

[Service Dog]

When the 'Covid Compliance Officer' is sent by the same model casting agency as the 'brand ambassadors', hired to pass out free product samples & just, like, look nice. Hmmmm...??? :think:

https://media.patriots.win/post/5XwwO6NX.jpeg

https://media.patriots.win/post/GUMsvk0T.jpeg

[Steersman]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ActualNames1 ... 2724342784

Tits is tits-up?

Though not a bad run - 91 years old.

And some fairly impressive contributions:

Tits received the Wolf Prize in Mathematics in 1993, the Cantor Medal from the Deutsche Mathematiker-Vereinigung (German Mathematical Society) in 1996, and the German distinction "Pour le Mérite". In 2008 he was awarded the Abel Prize, along with John Griggs Thompson, "for their profound achievements in algebra and in particular for shaping modern group theory".[2] He was a member of several Academies of Sciences.[citation needed]

He was a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.[3] He became a foreign member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Tits

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Last night I watched chunks of 2 Kyle Rittenhouse interviews-- with rightwing infotainers. One interview was with Charlie Kirk. The other was with some vapid California lizards who I've never seen-before, at The Blaze.

The weight of being-prosecuted has clearly lifted, and-- for the first time I've seen-- the kid has a buoyant demeanor.

On one hand-- displaying his appealing personality-- for all the world to see-- is a good antidote to the hateful monster image fabricated & disseminated as Fake News by 'the Cathedral'.

On the other hand-- he's giving his enemies fresh ammo to further defame him. For example, they point-to him laughing at the absurdity of the trial-- and use that to claim his crying on the witness-stand was bogus.

I think the infotainers need him... far-more than he needs them. If he wants to remain in the public eye, I hope he finds his own platform, as his own man, voicing his own views, rather than serving someone-else's narrative.

Good time to rotate my avatar.

His appearance with Sydney Watson and Elijah Schaffer was amusing, although I did think Schaffer was pushing the jokiness a bit too far without any apparent consideration for the fact that two people had been shot. If those are the two Blaze characters you are referring to I wouldn't call them vapid. Sydney is quite intelligent and usually level-headed. Although Schaffer irritates me with his Xtian BS and can come across as quite childish he does have some credentials as a journalist who makes the effort to get first hand knowledge of events.

[Steersman]

<snip>

You're blathering mate. Let me know when you think you have enough intellectual honesty to answer my questions:

Considering the standard biological definitions - endorsed by most credible dictionaries, encyclopedias and biologists, do menopausees qualify as "adult human females" or not? Do prepubescent "girls" qualify as females?

I'm not holding my breath ...

Steers' entire MO is "blathering"

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. In which there are a great many devils in the details. Which often needs some effort to describe with any coherence and consistency.

But to cut to the chase, maybe you can answer my questions above with a simple "yes" or "no"? Something that Service Dog seems congenitally incapable of.

PS I still luv ya mate

A likely story ;-) . Though not sure what you think that that might buy either of us. :)

But speaking of that - and that you're apparently still lurking about on Twitter, too - and about the rather odious consequences of transgender ideology, you might, if you were so inclined, tweet a link to my Medium article on Wikipedia's Lysenkoism to Helen Joyce. A few people have done so, at least to a general audience:



Somewhat similarly with Graham Linehan, though no word on much if any impact in either case. But it would certainly be consistent with or support Joyce's recent book, "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality".

[Service Dog]

Sydney Watson and Elijah Schaffer ... If those are the two Blaze characters you are referring to

Yeah. I only watched a 5 minute clip. I have the 2 hour version cued-up. I don't like the hosts' mincing mannerisms, forced mirth, their clothes. I'll watch the whole thing & hopefully their substance will be better than their surface.

Similarly, in the Charlie Kirk interview... when he mentioned Ana Kasparian, Kirk automatically digressed into mentioning her Armenian ethnicity/ juxtaposed against the 'Young Turks' title of her show. Which is a hack-y rote observation, has nothing to do with Rittenhouse, and... is the sort of cheap=-niping which I don't wanna see the kid associated-with. I laughed when Kyle paid no heed to Kirk... and gave high praise to Kasparian, for her change of heart.

Kyle did a good job on Tucker Carlson-- of distancing himself from prefab factions-- such as the Proud Boys or Lin Wood & QAnon. I think Kyle could become like Russell Brand-- marching to his own tune/ out of step with either corny 'side'. And that very-much includes Donald Trump. Better if Trump must pass-muster to earn Kyle's free-agent endorsement/ than if Kyle merely joins the MAGA-borg.

[Service Dog]

maybe you can answer my questions above with a simple "yes" or "no"?

Classic Steersman: asks a compound-question-- containing multiple question marks/ peculiar use of quote marks/ a digressive half-ellipsis with no return to the main question/ and the query " Let me know when..."-- then complains that the answer is not a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Fine, have it your way:

Let me know when...

No.

[Steersman]

Considering the standard biological definitions - endorsed by most credible dictionaries, encyclopedias and biologists, do menopausees qualify as "adult human females" or not? Do prepubescent "girls" qualify as females?

I agree with the thing you're attempting* to say.

You seem not to have a clue what I'm "attempting to say". Nor about "what I've intended to say". I doubt you have yet answered the above questions with a simple yes or no, despite the many times I've asked them. You seem incongenitally incapable of doing so; methinks that "intellectually dishonest" is your middle name.

(*Doing-so requires me to overlook your continued-use of self-contradictory wording & grammar. You remain incapable of actually stating your thesis in a sentence which is free-of internal contradictions. But I already tried to help you with that self-inflicted problem. And you rejected my help. So... I'll overlook the defective semantics of your semantic argument. I'll steelman your argument as-if you phrased it properly. I'll agree with what you intended to say.)

<"blathering" snipped ...>

What "self-contradictory wording and grammar"? What "internal contradictions"? Where? How? Show your work:

And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg

(44.2 KiB) Downloaded 92 times

That you might make that "connection" in your "mind" is hardly proof that the "conclusion" holds any water at all.

But rather doubt you're capable of that either. Largely because, in part, you clearly haven't got a clue about scare quotes. Nor about the definition for "nominal" and the related concepts of "in name only", and "for reference purposes only".

Oxford_Definitions_Nominal.jpg

(36.77 KiB) Downloaded 88 times

[Steersman]

maybe you can answer my questions above with a simple "yes" or "no"?

Classic Steersman: asks a compound-question-- containing multiple question marks/ peculiar use of quote marks/ a digressive half-ellipsis with no return to the main question/ and the query " Let me know when..."-- then complains that the answer is not a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

:roll:

Fine, have it your way:

Let me know when...

No.

LoL. One would think that I was asking a Muslim to piss on the Quran, that I was asking for some equivalent repudiation of some article of faith.

But sort of proof, if any more were needed, that you're as much committed to "female" as an "immutable identity based on some mythic essence" as the worst of the transloonie nutcases and other gender ideologues. Despite your intellectually dishonest protestations to the contrary:

GoogleDrive_MayaForstater_Judgement_Pt83_1C.jpg

(91.32 KiB) Downloaded 88 times

JaneClareJones_UnreasonableIdeas_BunFight1A.jpg

(100.8 KiB) Downloaded 88 times

What a fraud; "virulently anti-scientific and anti-intellectual sentiments", indeed:

Feminism_Professing_Sctn1D.jpg

(180.12 KiB) Downloaded 88 times

[Service Dog]

You are arguing in bad faith. Go back to the part where you wrote the following words: "you agreed with me".

That sure sounds like you know full-well that I agreed with you. Asked-and-answered.

One would think that I was asking a Muslim to piss on the Quran, that I was asking for some equivalent repudiation of some article of faith.

But sort of proof, if any more were needed, that you're as much committed to "female" as an "immutable identity based on some mythic essence" as the worst of the transloonie nutcases and other gender ideologues. Despite your intellectually dishonest protestations to the contrary

[Service Dog]

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Juicy Smolay guilty on five counts.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Let me know when...

No.

Well, if it isn't Johnny Steerzo!

[Service Dog]

Juicy Smolay guilty on five counts.

I hope the weeks-of-time between the 1st time Jussie Smollett lied to police... thru the 5th time... counts against-him in sentencing.

Will be pretty funny... if the Judge gives him a nothing sentence-- for his 1st offense, then progressively-higher charges for each subsequent count, and then 3 years for his 5th offense.

[John D]

Oh shit! I had been drinking last night (as usual). The old lady and I had just enjoyed watching "Masked Signer" and "Survivor". All was well until the "First Wives Club" movie came on. It is basically a bitches revenge movie about how some divorced harpies do everything they can to destroy the lives of their ex-husbands. Much hilarity ensues as they destroy their ex-husbands lives and businesses... and grin with delight throughout.

The scene that put me over the top was when one of the harpies (either Bette Midler, Diane Keaton, or Goldie Hawn) took money from her ex to open a Womens Abuse center.... at this point in the movie I yell "WOMEN!... WOMEN!".

This was a really bad strategy for making my wife happy.... but I did have a strange sense of relief. She turned off the movie and we sat quietly for ten minutes. Then I went to bed.

[another lurker]

Jacinda Adern has some competition

[another lurker]

[John D]

Beggin your pardon sir... but may I request that I humbly remove all the digits from yon vile miscreant one-by-one as a pleasure to myself and thou?

I have been reading Ivanhoe!

[Steersman]

https://mobile.twitter.com/4WPub/status ... 0007356417

Further illustration of the rank insanity of letting "identifying as X" trump "being X".

But, to maybe gild the lily or maybe to flog a dead horse, see Helen Joyce arguing that "the gender self-identification lobby is harming children, women – and trans people themselves":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eople.html

Likewise with Beth Stelzer of Save Women's Sports on the Ingraham Angle:



And likewise Katherine Deves in Australia I think:



But the bottom line, so to speak, is that "women" - in general - and society won't turn that "red tide" - so to speak - if we're not prepared to define and defend our terms. For "female" and "woman" in particular. Loosey-goosey has some justification in some cases, but when push comes to shove - as is clearly now the case - then we have be prepared and willing to draw a line in the sand. And let the chips fall where they may.

Many people are prepared to give some lip service to the scientific method - hypotheses and testing them. But many don't realize that science, and more generally, mathematics are largely a matter of book-keeping, that the bedrock of both is defining our terms. With some degree of honesty and consistency.

Failing to do so just gives free-rein to the transloonie nutcases and their "useful idiots". Which clearly has a great many rather odious consequences - see the above.

[Steersman]

Oh shit! I had been drinking last night (as usual). The old lady and I had just enjoyed watching "Masked Signer" and "Survivor". All was well until the "First Wives Club" movie came on. It is basically a bitches revenge movie about how some divorced harpies do everything they can to destroy the lives of their ex-husbands. Much hilarity ensues as they destroy their ex-husbands lives and businesses... and grin with delight throughout.

The scene that put me over the top was when one of the harpies (either Bette Midler, Diane Keaton, or Goldie Hawn) took money from her ex to open a Womens Abuse center.... at this point in the movie I yell "WOMEN!... WOMEN!".

This was a really bad strategy for making my wife happy.... but I did have a strange sense of relief. She turned off the movie and we sat quietly for ten minutes. Then I went to bed.

Marriage is clearly a mixed blessing. Like when your mother-in-law drives your brand new Porsche over the cliff ... :rimshot:

Reminds me of when I was a young and callow fellow of 18 or so, still wet behind the ears with next to no experience with "the fairer sex", and my boss had suggested that old married couples held hands because both realized that that was one less hand available for the other person to hold a knife and stab them in the back with it.

Kinda helps to remember that it's quid pro quo - more or less all the way down.

[Steersman]

You are arguing in bad faith. Go back to the part where you wrote the following words: "you agreed with me".

That sure sounds like you know full-well that I agreed with you. Asked-and-answered.

https://i.imgur.com/U3A2X1h.jpg

One would think that I was asking a Muslim to piss on the Quran, that I was asking for some equivalent repudiation of some article of faith.

But sort of proof, if any more were needed, that you're as much committed to "female" as an "immutable identity based on some mythic essence" as the worst of the transloonie nutcases and other gender ideologues. Despite your intellectually dishonest protestations to the contrary

https://i.imgur.com/mtW8zAa.jpg

Sure, I'll cheerfully concede - have conceded - that you've agreed with me. But the questions are, to what extent and whether you're just a "fair-weather friend" who will abandon the field, unbloodied, when push comes to shove. Which is clearly what is happening right now as "another lurker's" recent comment illustrates.

But more particularly, you had said:

So you agree with my "premise" and consequential conclusions that, for example, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs?

Sure, why not? As far as I can tell--- what you're doing is like-- looking at the Graphite in a pencil & calling it "crystalline Carbon". And further sorting the pencils by whether their graphine structures are hexagonal or rhombohedral. There's a place for such fine distinctions. But I mostly dwell in realms where there's infintessimal harm in calling it "lead". I'm well-aware it's not ₈₂Pb --Lead on the periodic table.

I think we need Gender Studies departments like a fish needs a bicycle-- but if we are to have such things, your classifications are better than the other leading contenders.

I appreciate that you conceded that "transwomen without their nuts are sexless eunuchs", and that "my classifications" - though they're hardly ones I've pulled out of my nether regions - "are better than the leading contenders".

However, you seem rather desperate to insist on that supposed "infinitessimal harm" while being blind to the fact that ignoring "such fine distinctions" is the proximate cause of no end of quite egregious consequences. Evidence of that being that when push came to shove, when the chips were down, you balked at defending the premise that you had supposedly agreed with - that to have a sex is to have functional gonads - by suggesting that "honorary females" was a term that "wasn't going to happen":

prepubescent girls and menopausees are only "honorary females"

Stacking the scare quotes on top of the adjective is like using a double-negative.

You can't have your cake and eat it too mate. If you're not part of the solution ...

[MarcusAu]

Probably seems a bit partisan to some - but the end comment was an interesting take...

[Steersman]

Probably seems a bit partisan to some - but the end comment was an interesting take...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1458121381766369287

The bit about dinosaurs? :-) Bit of a simplistic "just-so story" typical of evolutionary biology, but metaphorically speaking of some justification.

Though don't think his suggestion that "women" without a "man" are lost, are not able to have a "fulfilling life" holds a lot of water. But some sympathy for his criticisms of "happy wife, happy life BS" and of feminism.

No doubt women are "oppressed" - though more by their biology than by "The Patriarchy (!!11!!") - but too much of feminism is less a credible philosophy than more a political project which attempts to repudiate and, one might tentatively suggest, emasculate and bastardize science. Lysenkoism writ large.

See this by a more or less sensible feminist, Amia Srinivasn: "Does feminist philosophy rest on a mistake?" ("a conflation of epistemology and politics"):

https://users.ox.ac.uk/~corp1468/Resear ... 20talk.pdf