You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Education’ category.
Men will go to amazing lengths to satisfy their fetishes.
Another common tactic of the woke activist left is to argue that concepts that seem straightforward are actually not and are “complex”. A deeper higher level of understanding is necessary to properly understand the topic – strangely enough this added complexity always points toward the ideological pre-conclusions the activist has in mind.
Let’s set the scene. An individual asks a question to clarify an elected officials understanding of biology.
The elected official responds with some unrelated word salad thinking that this red herring is somehow getting closer to the truth. I’m not sure what field she is a scientist in, but it isn’t biology for sure.
Emma Hilton, an evolutionary biologist picks up the mantle and responds with the empirical facts of the matter. She explains the obvious first and details the erroneous filler Representative Taylor offered up. It is succinct and to the point.
The complexity angle arrives!
Drew is an idiot and a woke activist. Please notice the framing of Drew’s assertions. “Traditional binary view of sex” “doesn’t acknowledge the biological complexity and diversity in sex determination”.
Good gravy! Become extra skeptical once you see phrases and words like this – they are almost always indicative of the bullshit being spread thick and wide. Drew also gets bonus doofus points for trying to correct an evolutionary biologist on sex differentiation.
Emma’s response.
Drew is now on the receiving end of a very impressive fuck around and find out moment, as neither his bullshit facts nor his attempts at social coercion are working.
The moral of the story is that facts not feelings should win the day – every damn time. This isn’t the case in society at large though as the activist feelings crew have made impressive strides to quell dissent and silence people speaking the truth. Be like Emma, not Drew.
Bonus bullshit round! – No scientific discussion would be ‘complete’ without some douche bringing in an irrelevant social constructionist assertion.
You can’t make this shit up folks. :/
This is how the activist Left abuses polysemy. Polysemy is defined as follows:
So, this is their game. To make their radical propositions seem reasonable they purposefully use words that have a generally accepted meaning, but then at the same time a special transformative meaning for them. The woke activist left does this so they can move the political/social football in a radical direction all the while sounding like they are saying normal, reasonable things.
Let’s take an easy obvious example, let’s look at the word “inclusion”.
“Inclusion” in this case is doing a great deal of work under the hood. The argument from the activists is this – we should include all types of women in female sports that includes “cis-women”¹ and of course “trans – women”.
The mechanism at work here is “inclusion” means accepting the notion that there are more that one type of females in society that play sports. This is the truth married to a lie in action – the woke argument for inclusion inserts the notion that males who call themselves women are actually women and thus in ‘woke reality’ we should include deluded males in the female category.
This is how they wedge their bullshit into society because when confronted by people who comport with reality woke activists can then smear and attack their reality abiding opponents for not being “inclusive”. To low information people seeing the argument taking place they see one side coming out for inclusion and one side being against inclusion (the bigots, the transphobes, insert your preferred vehicle of social coercion…) – but the definition of inclusion the low information people have in their heads is not the same as the one the activists are implicitly following.
So the low information people working on the non activist definition of inclusion are bamboozled into going along with the activists (and the poison pill contained within) thinking that they are supporting a just, more inclusive society.
Obviously, the exact opposite is true. By including men in female sports female athletes are excluded from participating, winning medals, and getting funding to further their excellence in their own category.
This is dichotomy of terms (dialectical even) is not a mistake, because if they led with a clear unambiguous statement of their inane version of ‘inclusion (including males in the female sport categories)’ they would get zero social traction/support for their society corrosive radical views.
¹ – Just a sidebar this is why it is advisable to never accept the term “cis” in your affairs and society. “Cis” erases the authentic definition of what a woman is. Women are exclusively adult human females, full stop. Including males who think they are women in the category blurs and invalidates the category and destroys the ability for people to make reasonable category discernment in social situations.
If you do not understand your opponent you can never best them. We need to be aware of where the current attack on Liberal values and Liberal society come from.
Shocking, that men harbouring delusional beliefs that they are women are more prone to committing sexual offenses.
Sex offending rate of women: 3 per one million
Sex offending rate of men: 395 per million
Sex offending rates of transwomen: 1,916 per million
“So, what is the takeaway from this analysis? The single biggest observation is that, contrary to what has been asserted by advocates of youth transition, most adolescents with a GD diagnosis will not have this diagnosis within as few as seven years, during the period of rapid identity development. The single most important implication is that there is no empirical basis for assuming that most adolescents presenting with GD are destined to live as gender-transitioned adults. This further suggests that the GD diagnosis presents a dubious basis for offering teens life-altering interventions with permanent impacts on health and functioning.”
One of the confounding aspects of trying to have a conversation with an activist is the staunch refusal to meaningfully engage.
This refusal comes in many forms but it usually breaks down like this:
1. Statement about a topic in society – for instance – School libraries should not carry age inappropriate materials on their shelves.
The activist reply usually goes down two familiar paths. The first is to attack the person making the statement – “Only people on the far right say such terribly bigoted and hateful things. Why are you so filled with hate?
Notice here they have selected the way of social coercion, in this gambit they are attempting to bring social pressure down on you for making a neutral innocuous statement. This hinges on the idea of guilt by association: Who wants to be labelled a far right ‘nazi’?
No one, of course. But does their name calling equal a meaningful answer to the assertion being put forward? Of course not.
The second method is formally called drawing a false equivalence/strawmanning, but in practice it can be thought of as comparing apples to oranges and attempting to make a judgement based on the the misapprehension of the facts of the matter. The activist apples to oranges tack looks something like this:
How could you be in favour of banning books? Don’t you believe in a free society and freedom of speech? What kind of authoritarian are you to want to ban books in a free society, you know Hitler banned books right (they often can’t resist a combination approach)?
Does the activist meaningfully address the claim? Nope. What happened is they took a false reading of what their interlocutor said, and then argued against what they added to the conversation. To reiterate, the claim was that age inappropriate materials should not be in school libraries. Our claim wasn’t about banning books outright, and never allowing children access. Our claim was based on child cognitive development and the need for having age appropriate materials that will best address the needs of the children.
Notice their (erroneous) argument is easy to make. “You are for banning books!” “You are a right-wing hateful bigot!”. It takes much more time to carefully sort out their accusations and clear up all the mud they’ve thrown into the waters.
It is a pain but it is always necessary to name the dynamic that is in play. This isn’t about ‘winning’ an argument or ‘owning the Libs’ and if it is you are engaged in the same sort of bad faith your opponent is employing. In a worthwhile conversation both parties should be looking to try and decipher what the truth of the matter actually is. It requires both parties to be willing to change their positions based on a set of agreed upon facts that comport with reality.
Name calling and arguing against your notion of what your opponent is saying is the opposite of a constructive conversation. Thus, it behooves you to show the argumentative dodges in play and ask your interlocutor to make a charitable assertion with regards to what you’ve asserted. It is perfectly acceptable to ignore the various slings and arrows (naming them as they happen) and continue to ask for a reasonable response to your assertion.
What you’ve done has placed the ball firmly in their court. They can continue to make baseless claims and continue to demonstrate their dishonesty, or they can choose to address what you’ve actually said.
The takeaway for this is to let your opponent demonstrate their honesty or dishonesty – it is their choice and their motivations will become clear depending on which path they choose.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…