I had started by going back as far as 2003 for lawrence v. texas era material and hoo boy
― noel gallaghah's high flying burbbhrbhbbhbburbbb (Doctor Casino), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 16:28 (six years ago) link
The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should. Admittedly, this path is far easier for some than others, but there has always been some play in the cultural joints. The Left’s response is alluring, but it offers a self-indulgent path down which lies cultural ruin. The LGBT Left is driving us there just as fast as it can depress the gas pedal, but thanks to McHugh and Mayer, we now know they most assuredly are not doing so in the name of “science.”
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 16:30 (six years ago) link
sorry, back to today's article:
Part one of the compromise will be borne by cultural conservatives and traditionalists. It asks for broad tolerance for the reality that transgender men and women exist, and are entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else. This does not mean having to morally endorse behavior many may believe runs contrary to God’s plan for a just and healthy society, but it does imply that acts like ostentatiously calling people by pronouns they don’t want, or belittling their personal struggle, are boorish and petty. It means acknowledging that arbitrary discrimination against transgender people is a cruel bigotry like any other.But part two of the compromise requires sacrifice on the part of progressives, who are currently overplaying their hand in an effort to strong-arm sweeping social change as a flex of their power. There must be a halt in the use of state authority to impose accommodation of transgenderism in a fashion far more totalitarian than is rationally justified. Transgender people constitute a tiny minority of Americans who, in the vast majority of cases, are explicitly eager to opt into the broad two-gender social order our civilization is based around. Tolerance does not necessitate a purge of any and all public manifestations of the gender binary in the name of extreme exceptions to the rule.
But part two of the compromise requires sacrifice on the part of progressives, who are currently overplaying their hand in an effort to strong-arm sweeping social change as a flex of their power. There must be a halt in the use of state authority to impose accommodation of transgenderism in a fashion far more totalitarian than is rationally justified. Transgender people constitute a tiny minority of Americans who, in the vast majority of cases, are explicitly eager to opt into the broad two-gender social order our civilization is based around. Tolerance does not necessitate a purge of any and all public manifestations of the gender binary in the name of extreme exceptions to the rule.
wow, FUCK YOU NRO
― obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 16:30 (six years ago) link
"Judeo-Christian" is the fucking worst fake idea
― valorous wokelord (silby), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 16:36 (six years ago) link
pic.twitter.com/la9Nf0NNbh— David Klion (@DavidKlion) May 8, 2018
― Simon H., Wednesday, 9 May 2018 18:45 (six years ago) link
No. Normalizing it isn't good, nor what a conservative would do.— hubris (@Fit_And_Hubris) May 9, 2018
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 18:49 (six years ago) link
The response didn't take long!
Let me lay down my prediction, here. We are not headed toward some civilized modus vivendi but imminent tragedy. In the future, the current psychological theories and surgical enthusiasms associated with this movement will be regarded with open horror.
The beginning of the end will come when a some poor young man, upon reaching the age of majority, decides to sue the deep-pocketed psychologists, and university hospitals that tried to remake him as female when he was a child according to their enlightened theories about his behavior, destroying the function of his sexual organs, depriving him forever of the chance at fatherhood, and condemning him to a life of yet more surgeries. He will show that in this matter and only this matter did it become accepted to recommend treatments that increase the likelihood of suicide. Do you think the settlement figure will be somewhere in the 9-figures? Lately I’m tempted to guess 10. Imagine the new suggested guidelines from malpractice insurers . . .
Until that day, I’m not going to compromise with this movement, anymore than conservatives should have compromised with the eugenicists and their surgeons.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/transgender-issues-conservatives-should-not-compromise/
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 22:20 (six years ago) link
conservatives should have compromised with the eugenicists and their surgeons
I lol'd
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 May 2018 22:23 (six years ago) link
I mean, conservatives loved eugenics!
so did progressives tbh
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 22:24 (six years ago) link
it was equal opportunity horseshit
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 May 2018 22:25 (six years ago) link
“Depriving [her ] of the chance of fatherhood” lol who gives a shit
― valorous wokelord (silby), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 23:11 (six years ago) link
you don't understand, it is very very important that we base public policy decisions on nonsensical hypothetical scenarios
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 May 2018 23:15 (six years ago) link
An interesting mistake conservatives make about queer liberation and transfeminism is that they are squishy relativist ideologies. It seems like this guy is the one who wants to argue a premise is bad from a bad consequence.
― valorous wokelord (silby), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 23:19 (six years ago) link
This guy isn’t even doing doctrinaire conservatism right, where’s the doctrine, who hires these facile muttonchop bloglords
― valorous wokelord (silby), Wednesday, 9 May 2018 23:24 (six years ago) link
surely the proper conservative position is to assert the trans person's responsibility for their own transition and also trial lawyers are thieves
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 9 May 2018 23:53 (six years ago) link
The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should.
like to introduce this fellow to a little thing called ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY
― j., Thursday, 10 May 2018 00:55 (six years ago) link
far more totalitarian than is rationally justified
uh
how much would be???
― j., Thursday, 10 May 2018 00:57 (six years ago) link
Degrees of totalitarianism, huh.
― Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Thursday, 10 May 2018 10:33 (six years ago) link
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfHXIc1UYAAcu-P.jpg
jerkoff.gif
― mookieproof, Thursday, 7 June 2018 20:28 (five years ago) link
Jonah?
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 7 June 2018 20:31 (five years ago) link
bingo
― mookieproof, Thursday, 7 June 2018 20:37 (five years ago) link
I knew from the ham-scented cargo short emanating from the equivocations.
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 7 June 2018 20:41 (five years ago) link
Apparently Michael Potemra died recently - one of their few writers that I don’t recall ever posting insane bullshit. The commenters hated him, he seemed like a pretty nice guy.
― JoeStork, Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:12 (five years ago) link
Probably their only poptimist on staff: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/taking-temperature-american-pop/
― JoeStork, Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:23 (five years ago) link
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dgn5N-_XkAAtUVI.jpg
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 14:16 (five years ago) link
LOLry has been wonderful the last week.
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 June 2018 14:18 (five years ago) link
lol
― Joe Gargan (dandydonweiner), Tuesday, 26 June 2018 16:46 (five years ago) link
Roe is judicially wrought social legislation pretending to the status of constitutional law. It is more adventurous than Miranda and Griswold, other watchwords of judicial activism from its era. It is as much a highhanded attempt to impose a settlement on a hotly contested political question as the abhorrent Dred Scott decision denying the rights of blacks. It is, in short, a travesty that a constitutionalist Supreme Court should excise from its body of work with all due haste.
Roe has been commonly misunderstood since it was handed down in 1973, in part because its supporters have been so determined to obscure its radicalism. It is usually thought that Roe only prohibits bans on abortion in the first trimester, when it effectively forbids them at any time, imposing a pro-abortion regime as sweeping as anywhere in the advanced world.
The confusion arises from the scheme set out in the majority opinion, written by the late Justice Harry Blackmun. In the first trimester, the Court declared, the right to abortion was absolute. In the second, states could regulate it to protect the mother’s health. In the third, states could restrict abortion in theory, but had to allow exceptions to protect the life or health of the mother, defined capaciously in the accompanying case of Doe v. Bolton to include “emotional, psychological, familial” considerations, as well as “the woman’s age.”
Roe struck down 50 state laws and has made it all but impossible to regulate abortion, except in the narrowest circumstances. More to the point, the argument that its particular set of policy preferences is mandated by the Constitution is flatly preposterous.
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 July 2018 19:12 (five years ago) link
I'm surprised LOLwry didn't quote Ginsberg.
have to say I am adamantly pro-choice but yeah the legal reasoning behind Roe has always seemed weak/a bit of a head-scratcher to me
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 19:17 (five years ago) link
Yeah, I'm not against the argument that it's a messy fix that leaves the door open to catastrophic rollbacks.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Tuesday, 3 July 2018 19:18 (five years ago) link
I'm not sure how you re-litigate this case (a) with this Congress (b) this Court
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 July 2018 19:19 (five years ago) link
unsuccessfully!
we'll never get a federal law legalizing abortion, I just don't see the legislative majorities lining up that way. which means this gets back to the states, which means abortion will be legal in CA, NY etc and illegal in huge swathes of the country.
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 19:21 (five years ago) link
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhL93tLX0AAd9V8.jpg
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 19:25 (five years ago) link
ah yes, who could forget the main problem with dred scott - that it attempted to settle one of the outstanding legal questions of its day
― This is a total Jeff Porcaro. (Doctor Casino), Tuesday, 3 July 2018 19:26 (five years ago) link
Always seeing these fucking cheesedicks pretend they wouldn't have 100% supported the Dred Scott decision at the time it was issued makes me so angry I could bite through rebar.
― Eliza D., Tuesday, 3 July 2018 19:47 (five years ago) link
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dh7M-5dX4AAZXlN.jpg:small
― mookieproof, Thursday, 12 July 2018 18:30 (five years ago) link
when you thrust your kids into a deep wet cave you'd better be prepared to deal with consequences, writes mona charen
― look, you’re just gonna get gravy on the baby sometimes 🤷♂️ (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 12 July 2018 18:44 (five years ago) link
Abort the mothers, that'll stop them
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 July 2018 18:53 (five years ago) link
you never know, you might abort the next elon musk
― the bhagwanadook (symsymsym), Friday, 13 July 2018 02:21 (five years ago) link
Stopped clock!
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 14 July 2018 11:24 (five years ago) link
If you want to understand one difference between the 18th & 19th century and the 20th & 21st century, think of it this way: If cable news had existed 200 years ago, there would be very few lawyers on cable news and an enormous number of pastors, ministers and priests.— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) July 25, 2018
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 25 July 2018 16:42 (five years ago) link
you should read Kevin Williamson on how Trump and.....FDR are remarkably similar.
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 25 July 2018 16:42 (five years ago) link
pass
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 25 July 2018 16:51 (five years ago) link
And verily do I say....lol
How many NR writers or editors involved in this issue have actually read the Orwell piece this cover quotes, where he argues that socialists should infiltrate and subvert conservative/military influence over the Home Guard to turn it into an instrument of left insurrection? pic.twitter.com/Yzh3RojVm8— Dan Trombly (@stcolumbia) August 10, 2018
Looking forward to NR's article on why AnComs should actually join the National Guard so they can acquire further access to heavy weapons and turn it into a heavily-armed antifa force during an upcoming period of national crisis.I hope this is a sign that American conservatives are becoming acquainted with the true importance of the right to bear arms, which is to ensure that the zavkom can properly provision the Red Guards and Kerensky's jailbirds to smash counterrevolutionary elements.In all seriousness, beyond jokes I could make about NR being new conservative crypto-Trot mag, it's rich to see the mag that ran a denouncement of antifa as a cover story ~15mo ago invoke the legacy of a far more radical (failed) armed antifa project in defense of US gun culture.As the NRA's increasing pivot to propaganda videos that barely mention guns at all and instead rant about violent antifa protesters and socialism demonstrate, the modern right doesn't actually believe in the sentiment Orwell is articulating here about the armed populace.Faced with a modern left antifascist street movement that is far less violent than the left of Orwell's day, let alone their 70s-90s UK successors, the right unsurprisingly sides w/cops enforcing order & wannabe Freikorps auxiliaries. Not surprising, but own your own viewpoint.
I hope this is a sign that American conservatives are becoming acquainted with the true importance of the right to bear arms, which is to ensure that the zavkom can properly provision the Red Guards and Kerensky's jailbirds to smash counterrevolutionary elements.
In all seriousness, beyond jokes I could make about NR being new conservative crypto-Trot mag, it's rich to see the mag that ran a denouncement of antifa as a cover story ~15mo ago invoke the legacy of a far more radical (failed) armed antifa project in defense of US gun culture.
As the NRA's increasing pivot to propaganda videos that barely mention guns at all and instead rant about violent antifa protesters and socialism demonstrate, the modern right doesn't actually believe in the sentiment Orwell is articulating here about the armed populace.
Faced with a modern left antifascist street movement that is far less violent than the left of Orwell's day, let alone their 70s-90s UK successors, the right unsurprisingly sides w/cops enforcing order & wannabe Freikorps auxiliaries. Not surprising, but own your own viewpoint.
Anyway elsewhere in this issue you can read Jonah Goldberg talk about how leftists are stupid for approaching cultural touchstones with an attitude to just confirm their priors regardless of the author's intended message. pic.twitter.com/L1m5xUqtDj— Dan Trombly (@stcolumbia) August 10, 2018
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Saturday, 11 August 2018 05:02 (five years ago) link
lol the (failed) co-opting by the right of orwell is a treasure
― 21st savagery fox (m bison), Saturday, 11 August 2018 12:30 (five years ago) link
https://i.imgur.com/GolMvyE.jpg
― mookieproof, Friday, 17 August 2018 15:18 (five years ago) link
DeSantis' "monkey up" phrase was not racist and that's that.
― The Silky Veils of Alfred (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 August 2018 11:55 (five years ago) link
Well.
But I’m going to make a confession. Truth be told, the way I covered this issue in 2015 and much of 2016 shed more heat than light. Here’s what I did. I looked at the riots in Ferguson, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Charlotte, the extremism of the formal Black Lives Matter organization (which referred to convicted cop-killers as “brothers” and “mama” and said its explicit goal was to “disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure”), and the continued use of debunked claims, including “hands up, don’t shoot,” and I focused on these excesses largely to the exclusion of everything else.
Yes, I used all the proper “to be sure” language — there are some racist cops, not every shooting is justified, etc. — but my work in its totality minimized the vital quest for individual justice, the evidence that does exist of systematic racial bias, and I failed to seriously consider the very real problems that contribute to the sheer number of police killings in the U.S.
To put it bluntly, when I look back at my older writings, I see them as contributing more to a particular partisan narrative than to a tough, clear-eyed search for truth.
― The Silky Veils of Alfred (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 13 September 2018 01:48 (five years ago) link