Buckle up, kids, this one's going to be all over the map, a free write of semi-connected thoughts as I'm working through a concept that hit me as I listened to The Romanovs while out on maneuvers with the Catican Guards. It's going to sting a little bit, too.
What happens when we become the playthings of powerful? What happens when their excesses and debaucheries are no longer orgies, drunken parties and displays of opulence, but us? By that, I mean that our tiny lives become their onanistic toys.
We'll start with Tom Knighton's substack essay, linked by Foxie. It's called, "Intersectionality Has Hit The Stop Sign."
Intersectionality is a favorite term among various forms of leftist activists. The overly simplified version of this is that all forms of “oppression” intersect in such a way that they’re all highly related...
However, intersectionality is running smack dab into a wall right about now.
There’s absolutely no doubt that by now you’ve heard of the controversy about transwomen in women’s sports. If you haven’t, buckle up.
I love you, Tom, but intersectionality hasn't hit a darn thing. The intersectionality crowd, we'll use SJWs for short, has never cared about people being hurt.
A few or even a few hundred chicks getting jobbed out of sports championships means nothing. Dude, trans people have a 40% suicide rate, both before and after treatment. The SJWs have known this for years. If they didn't care about a pyramid of skulls from the self-offed, they're not going to care about a couple of dudes in wigs mopping the floor with some high school girls at a track meet.
Many in the news media maintain that racism is a big deal. Confronted with the evidence from high school standardized test scores and yesterday's info about a 14-fold increase in undoubtedly black-on-black murders in Oakland, they go silent. They don't care about individual blacks at all. They can kill each other all day long for all it matters to them. And they do.
The Debt Clock says we owe nearly $28T. Not a single SJW is ignorant of this and yet they still prance along behind pipe-playing madmen like Bernie and AOC with grins on their faces. They don't have a care in the world as they talk about free college, free health care and free-God-knows-what-else.
The diversity crowd feels a frisson of pleasure when someone like Lori Lightfoot, a black lesbian, wins an election. They're silent when Macy's leaves a 170,000 square foot hole in the Magnificent Mile and when Chicago murders skyrocket, almost all of which are black-on-black.
It's not that they don't know, it's that they are solving a totally different equation than what they claim.
They are not fighting inequality, they're morally masturbating. Diversity, trans, racial justice, all of it is just pornography. It feels so good, but nothing gets done. Further, they risk nothing, since it's the mania du jour. No one will be canceled if they encourage a young girl to take lethal doses of testosterone. Instead, they might be elected President.
This is nothing more than the Romanovs having a drunken party followed by an orgy where innocent lives are the menu, whether that's black kids growing up without fathers or middle-class white girls binding their chests. The SJWs are going along with it because they get to feel the same orgasms of self-esteem as the powerful.
BLM is porn. The trans movement is porn. The Green New Deal and associated trillion-dollar programs are porn. It all makes us feel so, so, so gooooood, but in nine months we'll have ... nothing.
So stop thinking you've got them cornered with your pointless logical traps. It's not about logic, it's about the SJWs pleasuring themselves.
 |
| Here, Gavin Newsom enters his refractory period after, err, "inspecting" part of his green, green, oh-so-green, high-speed choo choo route in the economically crucial town of Remnoy, California. |
17 comments:
"14-fold increase in undoubtedly black-on-black murders in Oakland,"
I haven't looked at the full article you posted yesterday because the SF Chronicle wants me to pay for it first, but from the numbers you quoted, you only get a 14-fold increase by taking one very specific interpretation of the numbers they give (1 homicide last January vs. 14 this January). But, they then go on to say that homicides "at the current rate" will give 168 by the end of the year, compared to 102 last year. That's only a 68% increase. Still bad, but a long, long way from "14-fold". And the total shootings for January (50) would extrapolate to 600 by the end of the year, which is, again, about 50% more than the 415 last year. You can make your case just as well with the 50-70% increase number, calling it 14-fold just makes you look careless or dishonest.
As for the "undoubtedly black-on-black" part, why "undoubtedly"? There are a lot of people in Oakland who could be shooting each other, and lots of reasons why they might be doing it. The bit you quote says the statistics are for Alameda County (pop. 1.5 million) and part of Contra Costa county (pop. 1.2 million), so we are talking about ultimately around 600 shootings and 168 deaths out of 2 million people[*]. Sure, it could be gangs shooting at each other, but it could also be robberies gone violent; or homeowners shooting burglars; or people who have gone stir-crazy after being cooped up with other people for months and decided to have it out with them once and for all; or failed suicides; or even people who got so spooked by politics that they bought their first gun without knowing how to handle one, and ended up shooting themselves or someone else by accident.
Without some sort of information about who is getting shot, by who, and why, I don't think we can say "undoubtedly" about any of it. I'm not saying that the whole thing should be brushed off as inconsequential, but I am saying we are in no position to say "It's all *these* people's fault."
[*] That's 8.4 deaths per 100,000 people, which doesn't even get them on the board for the Top 50 Cities by Murder Rate (they'd have to get above 40 to even tie with Detroit).
A few or even a few hundred chicks getting jobbed out of sports championships means nothing. Dude, trans people have a 40% suicide rate, both before and after treatment. The SJWs have known this for years. If they didn't care about a pyramid of skulls from the self-offed, they're not going to care about a couple of dudes in wigs mopping the floor with some high school girls at a track meet.
What was the suicide rate before the trans rights movement started? Oh, you have no idea, because you couldn't be bothered to care? You only seem to care about trans suicide when you can use it as a talking point against trans rights.
Ted Anthony, my AP writer Twitter acquaintance maintains that racism is a big deal. Confronted with the evidence from high school standardized test scores and yesterday's info about a 14-fold increase in undoubtedly black-on-black murders in Oakland, he's gone silent. He doesn't care about individual blacks at all. They can kill each other all day long for all it matters to him. And they do.
Did you know there's a huge surge of white-on-white crime going on right now? Why are white people (like you) not talking about that? What are you doing to fix the white-on-white-crime epidemic?
Tim - yeah, the 14-fold thing was a cheap shot, but I was on a roll and I do these things in one take with a little editing for grammar and word use afterwards. Oh well.
The generic question at hand still remains - why don't 1200 added black-on-black murders matter put an end to the BLM mania? That 1200 is an estimate from something like 2000 total additional, but given the underlying stats, it's probably pretty close.
I got tipped off to this idea as I watched people have orgasms over the pseudo-poetry at the inauguration. The ecstasy was palpable, but the message was no different than the criminal justice reform of BLM. We've run that experiment and the data is unambiguous. It's conclusively a disastrous failure.
So why the moans of pleasure as the stated goals aren't just missed, but blown to bits? It's because the pleasure was the goal, not the black lives. Dittos for the high speed rail, the green new deal, the trans hysteria and so on.
It's all just porn.
I also removed that reference to Ted. It was completely unfair to him. Thanks for the yank on the leash, Tim.
I just saw that Chicago saw a big increase in murders and shootings. From heyjackass.com, here are the totals for January with percent increases over 2020:
Final January Totals (vs 2020)
Shot & Killed: 53 (+89%)
Shot & Wounded: 196 (+41%)
Total Shot: 249 (+48%)
Total Homicides: 54 (+46%)
Murders to date are 83% black and 13% Hispanic. I probably should have followed the AP guidelines and capitalized the b in black when I posted the murder stats because ... porn.
The diversity crowd who writhed in pleasure at the election of a black lesbian won't be affected by this at all. Diversity will still be our strength for them.
It's all porn.
Here are the carjacking stats which are equally a buzzkill.
https://heyjackass.com/2021-carjack-o-rahm-a/
K T Cat said...
The generic question at hand still remains - why don't 1200 added black-on-black murders matter put an end to the BLM mania
Apparently, black people are of the opinion that they don't need to protest in order to convince the police to arrest more black people.
Outside of that, would what you suggest they do that is not already happening?
What happens when we become the playthings of powerful?
::blinks in has been in school in the last three decades:::
Whatcha mean "when"?
My entire school career was powerful folks trying to use the captive population as playthings. I was protected by being 1) oblivious, and 2) having really good parents.
The hope is, once it's pointed out clearly enough, maybe the same folks who were totally OK with kids being chewed up for the last 30 years will stop giving the benefit of the doubt.
You're right, though. It's moral outrage pr0n.
They want to be on the right side of history. So they copy something that was brave and different-- and ignore that it's not a dial, they're dragging it off the other side of the road.
On top of not seeing what is wrong with a thing is that it hurts people, not that it hurts X group.
It's sad... also dangerous, but sad.
Apparently, black people are of the opinion that they don't need to protest in order to convince the police to arrest more black people.
Tell that to the Asian dude who got canceled for daring to interview a black local at a protest location who didn't echo what the progs insist he's required to say.
He had to do a public denunciation of himself for airing video of a local, middle-aged black guy asking where the ##### these protesters were when the criminals were tearing stuff up, and why the #### they thought he cared what color the ###### that killed his relatives was.
But hey, just a lower-class minority who actually lived there, and had lost family to the criminals-- what does he know? He's only suffered from people going "oh, gosh, that violent criminal is the wrong color. We should not arrest him." After all, what's the problem? Upper to middle class liberals don't have to deal with it, they aren't in the neighborhood the criminal is loose in.
But hey, One Brow is OK with that cost.
Just like he's hunky-dory with little kids and grannies being threatened by mobs when they're in their home, because someone spread a rumor that somebody who lives there might have considered accepting a federal contract.
Foxfier,
Tell that to the Asian dude who got canceled for daring to interview a black local at a protest location who didn't echo what the progs insist he's required to say.
Is "the Asian dude" Andy Ngo, who has been recorded panning his video montages with right-wing protestors and has released parts of videos that (when others pasted a fuller video of an interaction) were show to be highly misleading in a way that always supported far-righters? Is this because his feelings were hurt by not being able to speak at UBC or not having a book in one particular bookstore?
You want to talk cancel culture, let's talk Colin Kapernick, who lost several years in the NFL to cancel culture.
He had to do a public denunciation of himself for airing video of a local, middle-aged black guy asking where the ##### these protesters were when the criminals were tearing stuff up, and why the #### they thought he cared what color the ###### that killed his relatives was.
So, there was that one time he admitted he was a liar? Gosh, how terrible for him.
But hey, just a lower-class minority who actually lived there, and had lost family to the criminals-- what does he know?
He knows how to lie, mislead, and conspire with right-wing terrorists.
He's only suffered from people going "oh, gosh, that violent criminal is the wrong color. We should not arrest him."
That only happens when the violent criminals are white.
After all, what's the problem? Upper to middle class liberals don't have to deal with it, they aren't in the neighborhood the criminal is loose in.
True. Wealthy white people do rely on poor white people to keep poor black people down.
Foxfier,
But hey, One Brow is OK with that cost.
You're OK with the school-to-prison pipeline, so I don't feel much of the shade you're trying to case on me.
Just like he's hunky-dory with little kids and grannies being threatened by mobs when they're in their home, because someone spread a rumor that somebody who lives there might have considered accepting a federal contract.
Too many times, I've seen right-wingers claim that left-wingers did A-B-C, and when you read the official documents, it turns out to have been A happened from left-wingers, B from right-wingers, and C never happened at all. So, I'm not sure how much of your tale to actually believe.
That said, you've already escalated from "feeling threatened" to "being threatened", so it feels a little like the conversation with the high-school-football hero whose touchdown run gets longer with each telling.
Foxfier,
If you respond again, I think I'll just let it pass. Our discussions have too much heat and too little light.
Of course you'll "let it pass," it gimps your style when people keep pointing out issues with your claims, or points out that you are pushing objectively racist actions and sacrificing actual innocents for your sounds-nice policy goals.
That you, of all people, would try to cast shade on anyone for the claims not matching the evidence is rich. I have not forgotten you quoting evidence against a statement where you literally skipped the paragraph that proved what you were arguing against.
It's not about proof, Foxie. It's about consuming more porn.
Sadly, yes.
K T Cat,
It's not about proof, Foxie. It's about consuming more porn.
Even when people need to filter out the information they don't like to get their porn.
Post a Comment