Philosophical consistency is an aspirational goal. It is not, no matter how much we may want to believe in our own purity, something any of us will ever truly achieve. Also, even if you drive a Prius your farts stink; you have to spring for a Tesla before they turn to perfume.
It is easy to see the inconsistencies in the belief systems of people with whom we disagree (because they are all stupid and rude); it is much harder to recognize those in our own noble, and wise beliefs. Almost all of us here are small ‘l‘ libertarians. I am a conservative leaning libertarian. We yokels sometimes make jokes about capital “L” Libertarians being all about pot, Mexicans and ass sex which is our deliberately offensive shorthand for our belief that The Libertarian Party, (sorry I know it doesn’t really deserve a capital letter but how else do we distinguish between libertarians and Bill Weld?) campaigns exclusively on sexual liberation (which has been pretty completely achieved, and no you did not get a speck of credit from the progs), drug legalization (yay crony pot!), and open borders, to the exclusion of freedom of association, gun rights, and limiting the massive growth of government, which we see as the more significant issues.
I set this all out as a starting point, because I am going to be examining one of my own prejudices and it helps to give some context about my belief structure. In other words I studied law and philosophy and am now completely incapable of getting directly to the point. Hell, just be glad I didn’t spend 5 pages defining every noun in this article.
Up to this point you are probably thinking: Pompous guy spouting above the fray platitudes, libertarian model II, Paulista edition, time to move to the comments, nothing interesting here. But I am not writing this to signal virtue; I am writing this, and struggling with it, because I have realized (not for the first time) that I have a conflict in my beliefs, and one that I think quite a few people here share.
It has to do with everyone’s favorite non-acronym acronym. That wonderful keyboard swipe that defines sexual politics, LGBTQ. I am not worried about the L, they take care of themselves just fine, the G, they aren’t even victims anymore, the B, doubled date chances and all, or even the Q (Hi Q thanks for the mammaries!), but I have a problem with the T. Ok, I don’t really understand the Q, I mean literally, I do not understand what queer means if it is something not covered by the L, B, or G. So back to that troublesome T.
I believe that there are three phenomena lumped into that T, and that due to deliberate conflating of these phenomena, a great deal of misery is being created. First, there are the physically intersex individuals. That tiny minority who are born with some ambiguity in their sexual characteristics. Second, there are those suffering from gender dysphoria. Also a small minority, but in this case with a psychological disconnect between their otherwise normal physiology and their self perception. Finally, there are those I think of as the snowflakes. Generally young people who I believe identify as transgender either in confusion about their sexual desires, a search for victimhood, or just to dramatize teen angst.
For the intersex folk out there I have nothing but compassion. My only wish for them is that they find whatever role and path to happiness they can. If that means surgery, hormone treatments, and selection of a gender, great; if it means some other path, also great. For those with actual gender dysphoria my thoughts are more complicated. I personally think that treating a psychological disconnect by changing the body is the wrong path, but it isn’t my place to decide what path someone else should take, so who cares what I think?
For the snowflakes, less sympathy, a lot less. As with many snowflake issues the answer is that growing up is hard, but worthwhile, and I suggest they give it a try. No, occasionally having a stereotypical feminine feeling does not a dysphoria make. You are not a lesbian woman trapped in a man’s body. You are just a straight dude, even if you get off on wearing women’s clothes. Equally, if you are ok with your body, but want to engage in sex with another dude that is called being gay, it does not require surgery, hormones, or switching restrooms. Just do what makes you happy, don’t harm other people and stop being so dramatic.
And now you are all thinking: Ok, what’s so contradictory about all this? These are pretty bland, basic viewpoints on this issue, and even the part where I diverge from the sjw narrative I admit is none of my business so why bother to spout off? Aren’t I just being an angsty snowflake myself with all my dramatic “philosophical contradiction” nonsense? BUT I AM SPECIAL DAMMIT!
Well, there is a more controversial part of all this.
What about the kids? Pretty much anyone who claims to be libertarian is going to eventually come around to the idea that adults can make their own choices about hormones and surgery. There may be some waffling about bathrooms, and we may think prisons, sports leagues and other sex segregated venues should go by biology, but it’s very hard to claim to be pro individual liberty and at the same time deny adults the right to make their own decisions about their bodies. Children are a different thing. (Why will no one ever think of them!)
Children do not have full autonomy. Obviously, you cannot let a toddler, or grade-schooler, or even a middle-schooler make all, or even most, of their day to day decisions. A diet of soda, candy, and ice cream is unhealthy. Spending all day playing Fortnite or hunting Pokemon is less productive than school (ok, maybe the kids are right on this one). Vaccinations are actually a good thing, even if shots sting. And, no, the dog does not want to be dressed as your caparisoned stallion and ridden to battle with the forces of evil over at Mikey’s house. So, we all accept that children can rightly be prevented from doing as they wish.
We accept the concept of parental authority, and the idea that children’s basic right to liberty is in abeyance until some degree of maturation has occurred. (Or at least until they get big enough to be useful as cannon fodder.) Very young kids have effectively no liberty, and as they get older they gradually get more autonomy until at some magic point they morph into adults and become free to go to hell in their own way, just like all of us.
I have voiced the opinion that encouraging, or even allowing, children to take puberty blockers, or cross sex hormone treatments, is blatant child abuse. Puberty blockers have permanent effects and the idea that prepubescent kids are developed enough to make permanent decisions, or even to decide that they are transgendered, as opposed to simply homosexual, or just unsure about their sexuality, is nonsense.
By definition, prepubescent kids are not sexually developed. It is the rankest prejudice to say, “Oh, I know little Johnny is gay, or straight, or transgendered,” when little Johnny hasn’t hit puberty. Manifestly all you can be basing that belief on are your stereotypes about how gay people, or straight people act. You see, prepubescents aren’t supposed to be engaged in sexual behavior (sorry OMWC), and sexual behavior is what actually defines you as gay, straight, bi or whatever the hell, and no, playing with dolls doesn’t mean little Johnny is gay, or a woman.
Now, child abuse is a tough subject for libertarians and conservatives. We can accept that children don’t have full autonomy, and default to the idea that therefore their autonomy devolves to the parents. Since that leaves the parents effectively owning the liberty right of the child, we are skeptical about government involvement, but what about abuse situations? If libertarian belief followed all the way left us with no way to stop parents from torturing, raping, or killing their kids, then libertarians would really be as evil as Vox says. Fortunately, libertarian philosophy doesn’t have to take us there.
I think what saves us is the concept of a fiduciary. Parents do own their children’s liberty rights, but they own them as fiduciaries. In other words, they hold the right for the benefit of the child, not the parent’s own benefit, and Mommy and Daddy have a corresponding obligation to act in little Johnny’s interest. So, no problem right? If using puberty blockers is a bad idea, poorly justified, by inadequate evidence, of, possibly nonsensical, gender confusion, with long term deleterious effects, then it is child abuse and should be illegal, just like any other permanent physical harm inflicted!
That has been my belief and I have voiced it frequently. Here is the problem:
I support the right of crazy anti-vaxxers to refuse to get their kids shots. I also got furious, along with most of the people here about Charlie Gard. In other words I believe that medical decisions fall squarely within the parent’s role. So, despite thinking transgender treatments for children are as stupid as the Flat Earth Society bragging that they now have chapters around the globe, and as evil as a Broward County election supervisor, I have to support the parent’s right to make this decision.
So, that leaves me with three possibilities:
1. Medical decisions must be subject to some test and the parents only get to make the ‘right’ decisions.
The problem here is obvious. What test? Who decides? Doctors? Judges? Every single case of puberty blockers being given involved a doctor, as did the decision to kill Charlie, which was upheld by the British courts. So going this route doesn’t get me EITHER side of what I want. When an answer requires the right top men, it is not a libertarian idea
2. Puberty Blockers are up to the parents and child, hopefully in consultation with doctors across a decent spectrum of understanding of the consequences, and I can sit quietly disapproving but shut up about it.
3. My thought process sucks and you all will let me know why I am stupid in the comments.
Much as it pisses me off, I have to go with 2 here. The unexamined life may not be worth living; but examining it mostly leaves you feeling a bit dirty.
Comments
268 responses to “Liberty for Me, but Also for Thee”
-1 So crates
Now hit that mother-fkin’ THEME MUSIC !!
All, We are, is dust, in the wind
This one is better!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFkavneS60
Holy guilty pleasure. So bad it’s good….
Ah, Kansas, the Monkees of the 70s. A band wholly created by Don Kirshner.
But yeah, they had some great songs (as did the Monkees). They were one of my favorite bands in 1975-76. I think I even saw them live once in a big stadium show, but I might be confusing them with ELO.
Me and a buddy had their Best Of on constant rotation circa 1984. Along with the latest Priest and Van Halen et al….
Never heard them before 1976 – my first year in the Marines defining my shift to adulthood and independence.
Shatner covers Kansas?
LOL
Socrates
(RIP)
socrates
Excellent.
Fuck. Ing. A…
…C/DC
G-d bless you Tres Cool.
I daresay that interfering with a child’s natural development so as to change his/her apparent gender/sex is a bad thing that should be considered child abuse, given the irreversible nature and damage (physically and psychologically) of the change. “Trans-gendered” people, especially children, need therapy, not surgery and drugs.
This
HEY YUFUS!
Howdy!
Sure, it is clearly an awful thing being done to child. But it is being done by the parents, in accordance with the child’s wishes (however those wishes were formed), in consultation with a doctor. Where is there room for the State to intervene?
A pre-pubescent child can’t possibly have any understanding of what’s going on here.
Basically this. We have what we refer to as the age of majority for a reason. They don’t and can’t understand the long-term effects of such decisions.
And, at least to me, a parent who would do that to a pre-pubescent child is no different than Munchausen-by-Proxy mother making her child sick.
The lack of action and action are two separate things.
If a parent is interfering with normal development through absolutely unnecessary positive action, that is abuse and I believe others have the moral obligation to intervene.
jarflax? Since I mentioned Eric Deters….https://postimg.cc/5XzMqSJW
Did you give him some mother-fing theme music?
Like he doesn’t provide his own?
Stossel: Socialism Leads To Violence
I’d argue that socialism is violence, but I don’t disagree with any particular point in this. Also, would. Not Stossel, despite his dashing mustache. He’s got a hot, ethnic blonde doing some of his vids. The eyes and the accent are haunting in a good way.
^^ #subtlehotnesspost
Even on a Stossel video, I have to remember, don’t ever wade into YouTube comments!
Oh my how the stupid burns on the supporters of ‘democratic socialism’ on there.
One guy says socialism is the equivalent of having to buy car insurance, so no big deal.
socialism is the equivalent of having to buy car insurance
It’s literally not. But taking “socialism” to mean welfarestatism like the “democratic socialists*” do, it still isn’t. The car insurance mandate is about my liability for what damage I might cause to others, not what damage I might cause to myself.
*I still find it ironic that they think putting “democratic” in front of an evil ideology makes it ok. I suppose it falls in line with everyone, particularly leftists, constantly referencing “democracy” as a concept that is a moral good in and of itself, even though it patently is not because it is simply mob-rule.
Go call yourself a Democratic Fascist and see how far it gets you.
I mean, Hitler WAS elected…He was also a vegetarian…It all fits…
On that, self-described socialists need to learn that nazism is a derivative of fascism, which is derivative of socialism.
Would.
Up to this point you are probably thinking: Pompous guy spouting above the fray platitudes
Get off my damn lawn. Oh, I’m sorry, we’re you saying something?
I was talking to the damn clouds, mind your business!
You speak big think. Make Yusef brain hurt. Boy, boy Girl, girl…..
Confused………..
Did someone call me?
Good article. I need to revisit and read this more in depth tomorrow. I hadn’t mentally associated anti-vaxing with the whole trans thing yet but you make an interesting point. Child abuse in general is a topic I’m not completely settled about as a libertarian and have often wondered about. If the law is justice than it’s within the legitimate role of government to mitigate child abuse. That being said and knowing government for what it is, it will always result in encroachments against the family unit and transgressions against individual liberty. I don’t know if there is a perfect answer for this other than libertarianism is one of the only ideologies that doesn’t pretend to hold the keys to Utopia and child abuse is sadly part of the human condition.
In the specific case of parents helping kids get hormone blockers, etc. I guess my position is that while I’m not comfortable saying “there outta be a law,” I am comfortable saying that in many cases I’d be willing to bet helping their child transition has everything to do with them projecting their own issues onto their kid and or buying into their delusions and they are doing irreparable harm to their kids. Even if it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) land them in jail it doesn’t change the fact that there shitty parents to say the least.
Also if we had doctors who actually took/believed in the hippocratic oath they deluded idiots would have a very hard time finding a physician willing to help them mutilate themselves. Alas that’s horribly outmoded thinking.
As a physician who takes care of patients having gender change surgeries I have to say that I am deeply conflicted especially when the patient is a young teenager. In most cases it is apparent at face value that the patient IS the gender they wish to become physically and the parents are (often) uncomfortably supportive knowing all of the ramifications. That said, I have had patients who seem to be in a very awkward family and relationship situation that may have undy influenced their thinking so much that they make choices that are not entirely of their own will. In those situations I wonder if I am truly doing harm or not.
I can’t imagine a situation where “puberty blockers” are ever in the child’s interest. Am I missing something?
I can’t either. My point isn’t that this is, or even can be, a good idea, but that I do not see a principled argument for outlawing it.
If it’s always harmful (and I currently see no reason to think that it isn’t) then there is your argument.
Those doing it believe it is beneficial and they have a doctor in agreement. Tell me how authorizing the State to intervene with force isn’t just us imposing our beliefs on others. The distinction here is that the victim is a willing participant. The fact that they are incapable of choosing maturely certainly matters, but the default on that front is that the decision goes to the parents. If we say screw them they are idiots and doing great harm, what stops a vegan majority from banning feeding meat to kids?
‘…what stops a vegan majority from banning feeding meat to kids?’
I think you just described OMWC’s home life, ask him.
I’m here all week, folks. Remember to tip your waitress.
I consider willfully interfering with a child’s body chemistry while they are developing in puberty and are not mature enough to make rational life decisions is akin to chaining them to the toilet during the same period. I think it’s blatant child abuse and is already illegal and the parents should suffer the same fate for either crime.
I have heard of parents using them on children that are profoundly disabled. The goal is to keep the child small enough for the parents to care for at home. For the parents making that choice I have nothing but sympathy. Nonetheless, they face pretty virulent criticism.
Not entirely the same thing. What I’m thinking of is called growth attenuation therapy. Very controversial.
No different in my mind from castrating a boy to preserve his singing voice. Adults destroying part of a kid’s future because they think they know best.
My singing voice went up a couple of octaves just reading that.
‘LGBT’ is a silly acronym. The LGB community is very often at odds with the T community.
Also, I didn’t remember the Charlie Gard case. What a fucking horror show of oppression.
From what I can tell, it’s mostly a tiny but vocal minority of L who are at odds.
Nice article, BTW. I am in complete agreement with your analysis of LGBTQetc. I too have a problem with T and especially the way it got shoehorned in with the rest for really no reason beyond “not normal”.
See?
I don’t know if I would take my ramblings as anything “representative”.
Would you say, as a gay man, that your views are in the minority? Are you involved with the gay community in NYC? Is there a gay community in NYC, or has it gotten past that point to where “the gays” are just regular people and there isn’t a community, as such?
I’m curious about such things, but I never really know how to ask you (or anyone else here) without sounding like a hick from the sticks (which I am)
I guess I am just curious about how your politics jive with how other gay men think you should think, and if it causes strife in your personal life.
The “gay community in NYC” that you see in the media is largely an extension of the Democratic party machine. In reality “we” probably lean farther left than average but not as far as the media portrays. Other than “entertainment” activities I have not participated in any “community” activity in a couple decades. It has never caused any strife in my personal life whatsoever.
Thanks. I know my very conservative, small town, Upper Midwest upbringing skews my understanding of this. I have often wanted to ask you and others here specific questions, but I feel my ignorance is so deep that my questions would come off as insults or as demeaning or judgemental.
In my mind, your experience as a gay man is worthy of an article. I know many, maybe most, would roll their eyes at my provincialism. But it really is something I am curious about. (not that kind of curious!)
/drunk Mike
*hic* don’t worry about it.
We are free to ask anything around here.
That I know. What worries me is if I phrase my innocent questions inartfully too many times, I might get branded as a bigot. There’s been a couple persona non grata here that I missed what exactly their sin was, and I get a little worried sometimes that I may be the next one if I don’t phrase my questions properly.
*adjusts aluminum beer can hat*
Don’t worry Mikey. I’ll kick your ass if you get out of line.
Rhywun, are you just fucking with us with the constant name changes?!?
It’s much harder to think of the person behind these ramblings as a Baldwin brother than when you were Caravaggio’s Medusa.
Somehow you’ll always be that to me.
It’s definitely one thing different about here compared to TOS, with the avatars you have a little mental image of who’s talking, appropriate or not.
#metoo
I honestly didn’t think that persona registered enough to leave an impression. Perhaps I’ll go back since a few have suggested otherwise.
Another thing I was curious about but never asked; what’s the story behind “rhywun”?
Along with what C. said; I see your avatar, and read Luther Baldwin, but it’s almost like reading a different language; my brain translates it to Medusa and Rhywun.
Wasn’t it a clever way of saying ‘wry one’? That was how I always translated it.
“Rhywun” is the Welsh word for “someone”. I was looking for a unique handle about 20 years ago and so I turned to a language I knew would have lots of letters in that had no business being in sequence.
The “wry one” thing is the reason I wanted to get rid of it – I would never make such a presumption about myself.
Someone. That’s great. And even the misunderstood “wry one” fits you.
Is it pronounced like “wry one”?
No. More like “RHEE-oo-een”.
Rhywun, you’re back!!!
Sorry, I just thought the synchronicity was funny.
I certainly don’t want to collectivize you, but it’s an argument I’ve heard a lot lately. Frankly, even as a hetero guy, I get why LGBQ people would want separation from the T community. Very different people with very different desires and life choices.
My take, and it may not be exactly what you are going on about, but if you aren’t willing to intervene personally it ain’t any of your business. If my sister and her husband are doing possibly harmful things to my nieces and nephew, I’m going have a thing or two to say (or do in the extreme hypotheticals) about it, exact same situation happening to a kid I’ve never heard of hundreds of miles away..not so much. A lot of handwringing over the Trans issue comes across as “I don’t like it, so We need to do something.” most people faced with doing that something themselves without the We to back them up would fold like the rolls of flesh around Lena Dunham’s pear-shaped torso.
“I don’t like it, so We need to do something.”
I don’t like theft, assault, and murder (i.e. rights violations), so WE need to do something. As a minarchist, I support having a legal (i.e. governmental) structure to ensure that people are free to defend themselves and make possible the prosecution and punishment of people that violate the rights of others. I see this in that vein.
The child in this situation wants the puberty blockers. Their guardians agree. No right violations are occurring, only horribly unwise exercises of rights, that is my whole point.
I say the child’s rights are violated because the child is not capable of making said decision because said child is not capable of understanding the consequences. There is plenty of research showing that children grow out of these phases. Interfering with their biology in the midst of their natural development causes long-term distress and depression that leads to a suicide rate vastly higher than the average population, nevermind the simple fact of the hormonal and physical mutilation that occurs as a result of such “treatment”.
I do not believe the phenomenon of blocking kids puberty has been around long enough to have meaningful data on long term depression/suicide rates. Trans individuals have enormous depression/suicide rates without puberty blocking and one of the arguments being voiced for blocking puberty/early transitioning is to alleviate that problem.
Again I agree the practice is abhorrent and feel unclean even raising this point, but I still don’t see how a law against it can be justified from a libertarian perspective.
Tattoos are not allowed for someone under 18 in many states (including mine, Iowa), even if the parents consent. Tattooing is mostly a permanent thing, which seems to be similar in principle to changing sex.
Extremely good point.
How so? How is 18 a magic number when it comes to gender identification? If someone is in fact the opposite gender from their genes at an earlier why is it not better for them to transition in whatever way they are comfortable with at the earliest age possible not a good thing?
Define ‘is in fact the opposite gender’.
My point was that there is an age below which we forbid certain acts that are more or less permanent and life-changing. The exact age is debatable, and doesn’t even have to be the same for different actions, but the principle is that some things are not allowed until the person having them done reaches a certain level of maturity.
As Rhywun suggests, do we really want 8-year-olds (or whatever low age you want to choose) deciding they are the opposite gender? How can they really know if they haven’t even gone through puberty? (Rhywun, I see that your transformation back to your normal self is complete!)
I don’t believe 18 is the magic number, but prior to puberty is definitely not old enough to make that determination. This is a statutory rape versus pedophilia argument.
ie a mature 15 year-old should be able to make this decision, but most 15 year olds aren’t that mature.
The only way I see around that is some legal /administrative process to determine maturity or settling on a later age where almost all individuals would be mature enough.
And that’s how you arrive at 18. Because nobody wants to set up that other process.
18 is magic because you have to draw a line somewhere. Yes, there are 13 year olds that are more mature than 25 year olds, but no most.
So you pick the age at which we can force a man to carry a gun and shoot other men in faraway places and call it the age of adulthood.
If my sister and her husband are doing possibly harmful things to my nieces and nephew, I’m going have a thing or two to say (or do in the extreme hypotheticals) about it, exact same situation happening to a kid I’ve never heard of hundreds of miles away..not so much.
This is essentially the MYOFB principle. Mind your own fucking business.
The media, both news and creative, do a great job at convincing us that emotional voyeurism is a good thing. They treat life as if everything is up for a (local, state, national, or global) vote, and that you have top pitch into the angst as a part of your civic duty.
People are tortured, murdered, abused, killed, kidnapped, and otherwise mistreated every minute of every day, and if I took on the emotional burden of each and every one of those injustices, id be a wreck. I’ve adapted the MYOFB principle from my religious evangelism to my worldview as a whole. My opinion and interest extends only as far as my sphere of influence.
Vax or don’t Vax, trannie or don’t trannie, circumcise or don’t circumcise. As long as you’re outside of my sphere of influence, I’m gonna MMOFB.
*to pitch in and contribute to the angst
“you have top pitch into the angst” works as well…with a little poetic license.
MYOFB, I guess I should have just said that, sums up my politics very effectively.
Monty, I’ll take whats behind door number three.
Gender transitioning is an adult decision. Even if one wants to ignore that diagnosing gender dysphoria in prepubescent children is currently impossible, how someone wants to deal with his or her dysphoria a deeply personal decision. So it’s not something that parents or doctors should decide.
I’m against drugs requiring prescriptions (except in the case where their use can hurt others, such as antibiotics). So adults should be free to buy whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean they should give ketamine to their children.
^This. Studies show (or at least they purport to show) that the human brain doesn’t mature until about the age of 25. Plenty of empirical evidence for that, too. Most of us as teenagers hollered, cussed, drank and chased wimmenz (or menz, depending on sexual fixation) without much thought for the consequences. Given that, maybe the best thing is to leave it up to the individual whose condition it is.
But how do you define an “adult”? People mature in their thoughts and feelings at different ages. Do you honestly think you can set an arbitrary age when people can decide for themselves what gender they will be for the rest of their lives? How is it any of your business?
Snowstorm In Chicago Delays Hundreds Of Morning Murders
Ah, 2013…. When humor still existed.
Humor still exists. Though I don’t know how TheOnion is still in business considering the number of examples of TheOnion being real life. Often I can’t tell what is parody anymore. Here is an example. Like the #MAGA(not a)bomber, it seems too on the nose.
Humor is dead, click the link below for proof:
http://www.cracked.com
Just so I’m clear about this, this is the magazine that used to be a competitor of Mad Magazine? What the fuck happened?
I’m not sure if they had some kind of formal link or they just appropriated the name somehow. Circa 2008 to around 2012 they were an everyday read for me but they caught the leftist bug and now too much of their “humor” is just preachy and unfunny.
Yes, and they morphed into whatever the hell they are now like a decade ago.
It’s sad. Back in my formative years, I remember liking Cracked as much, if not more, than Mad.
Except for Spy vs. Spy. I absolutely loved -and still do love- Spy vs. Spy.
They cracked
It’s telling that it’s one of the only articles I’ve read recently that lives up to the headline… and it’s from 2013. An awful lot are like this, where sentence after sentence merely paraphrases a funny title.
“Hi Q thanks for the mammaries!”
http://archive.is/UtO85
https://non-nude-sexys.tumblr.com/image/180307915622
Tits aren’t big enough.
You spelled “too big” wrong.
Sure. If you like transitioning children, I suppose those tits are too big.
Are you othering me?
You othered yourself when you disagreed with me.
Hi, Q. You’re the breast.
He’s the tits.
Tomorrow he’ll be the cat’s ass.
You might say that he is our breast friend.
Possibly our nip-pal?
Bring us some links
Q Continuum
Show us some tits tonight
Cause we’re all in the mood for some mammaries,
And some of those look pretty tight.
/Billy Joel
4, 9, 13, 15.
I don’t believe in government and I don’t vote. No amount of bullshit I spout on the internet has anything to do with my principles.
Old Man With Candy seems like the most qualified to answer the questions raised by this post.
There is an OMWC related question I deliberately have left out of my argument here, which is a fair analogy (and in fact the closest analogy to this question I can think of) but no one has voiced it.
Do you know how hard it is to come up with reasoned, non-flamey, non-assholish way to bring the issue into a topic? I rewrote the question on the issue three times then gave up.
Stop the cute bullshit and talk the brass tax here. What is the age of consent in your libertopia?
I’m going with Aristotle’s 3 category idea modified slightly. Pre pubescent we burn you alive. Pubescent to 16 consent is an affirmative defense (lawyer talk for burden of proof is on the accused to show knowing consent (ie that the young person understood what sex was and consented), but remains on the prosecution to prove the act), 16 and up normal rules apply.
So the jail bait who is probably 15 but looks at least 19.5 is that comes into my shop with her Mom and keeps giving me the eyes is fair game if she signs a contract?
In my imaginary world yes. In real life it turns into a delayed action 3 way with the you her part lasting a few minutes and the you Bubba part lasting a decade.
Look, you are talking like a faggy lawyer and your avatar reminds me of anti-Semitic caricatures so I’m assuming your (((legit))).
My avatar is the Cheshire Cat from American McGee’s Alice, which was an awesome surreal, creepy platformer-combat game. I am only legit))). As I have joked before I am Jewish for all NAZIs wanting to kill me purposes, but not Jewish by the rules of the faith. (Dad’s parents were Jewish, Mom was not, Dad is a Jeffersonian Deist in so far as he is anything. So I don’t get in on the matrilineal descent route. Don’t get in by practice/bar mitzvah. I never learned Hebrew, but I am told by a friend who did his stint in the IDF that I have the right of return. TMI?
I didn’t get very far in that. The controls were shit.
legitimate query. When I was 16 I met a girl that was 14 but looked easily 20. I never had anything to do with her but found out through the grapevine that she had apparently gotten older guys in trouble before.
Safest to bang the Mom until the daughter is unambiguous. She’ll want you even more after, to spite the Mom.
Trust me, I saw a documentary on it.
I thought that’s where Jarflax was going with “delayed three way”…
I saw that documentary, like 4 thousand times.
Twist at the end? He installed the cable.
“Don’t be fatuous,
JeffreyRobert>”Post-pubescent as defined by biology. But there is no hard age (heh…) for that as physical development varies from person to person. And even that doesn’t fully consider mental development, which unless I am mistaken, modern research says continues into our twenties. So I suppose I am ambivalent on this until convinced otherwise by more knowledgeable people.
I thought you meant circumcision at first.
Circumcision of babies lacks the child’s consent/desire for the harmful act dimension. Honestly at the risk of drawing wrath down on my head I think a stronger case can be made for banning child circumcision than puberty blockers, even though I believe puberty blockers are far more harmful. The argument for circumcision is based in religious liberty, and since it is an irremediable alteration imposed when the child literally cannot even know what is happening, as an expression of the parent’s religion, it is very questionable.
I had a little discussion about this with my Dad over Thanksgiving. He likes to jump on the “ban Muslims” bandwagon at every turn and the most recent outrage was female circumcision. My response was “I agree that it’s bad and I can’t see how any parent could wan that for their daughter but the same argument could be made for male circumcision.” FGM is another are that I’m a little uneasy about; it’s flat out awful but you get into dangerously inconsistent territory when you get your ban-boner on.
Not true at all. Being uncut carries many risks which are eliminated by circumcision. My kid was a ward of the state until he was two. We were foster parents. We lacked the legal authority to get him cut. Now he’s six and he’s been to the doc twice for dick problems and they might want to do a medically necessary circumcision. It’s very painful for him. I can’t believe a dude has to go the doc for dick problems unless he had his way with the wrong skank.
A relative of mine (uncut) had several problems with infections growing up, and yes, he did clean himself.
My serious me-not-the-character-OMWC answer is, “I don’t know.” I’d love to read a good debate between smart people who are much more knowledgeable about this than I am so that I can at least begin to think about an informed opinion.
I’m not sure the anti-vaccination parents are a good analogy: Not getting your kids vaccinated might cause your kid some serious problems but probably won’t. Giving your kid hormone blockers will almost certainly cause serious problems in the future and once you begin lopping off parts you can eliminate the almost. I’m not keen on the government sticking its nose into the parenting process either but, damn, we should be realistic here.
2. Puberty Blockers are up to the parents and child, hopefully in consultation with doctors across a decent spectrum of understanding of the consequences, and I can sit quietly disapproving but shut up about it.
This, at least the first part. All drugs should be available to anyone without restriction. Opioids, antibiotics, Narcan, and even hormone meds. It would be difficult to create legal restrictions around the use of hormone meds without starting the inevitable return back to where we are now with prescription everything.
Not sure about the second. Being legally able to do something isn’t the same as being free from repercussions for doing immoral things. My understanding is that some pacifist Anarchists believe immoral actions are handled by shunning the person from the community. There’s something to that. Even if completely legal, my guess is that the number of parents willing to butcher their children like this would drop essentially zero if they received a barrage of shit from their family and friends. In our current upside down world, I’m guessing they’re receiving praise and status from their peers.
Oh absolutely, I was being glib with the second part. Nothing I am arguing means I think such parental monsters shouldn’t be mocked, shunned, yelled at, argued with, or in any other way short of the force of the State dissuaded from doing this awful thing.
On that point I wholeheartedly agree.
short of the force of the State
Why qualify the force? Is a group of well-meaning, immaculately dressed upstanding citizens breaking some kneecaps as a warning not to do Bad Things an improvement if it’s formed ad-hoc for the issue, rather than authorized by The State?
I was thinking more in terms of Grampa coming over and smacking hell out of their proggy kids for doing this to the grandkid.
^This.
My understanding is that some pacifist Anarchists believe immoral actions are handled by shunning the person from the community. There’s something to that. Even if completely legal, my guess is that the number of parents willing to butcher their children like this would drop essentially zero if they received a barrage of shit from their family and friends. In our current upside down world, I’m guessing they’re receiving praise and status from their peers.
What if people are so shitty that even without the political bullshit that surrounds the trans movement and creates this social status they’d still praise and uplift somebody for mutilating their kid like this? Anarchotopia might be filled with the anarchist equivilant of today’s soulless post-modernists.
That’s a good question. I’m not a pacifist anarchist. In a world without rule of law, if I saw my neighbor putting out lit cigarettes into his 5-year-old kid, I’d take action well beyond shunning.
Is forcing your 5-year-old into the opposite sex on the same level of child abuse as physical torture? If so, then in an anarchistic world, physical action against the parent would be justified (IMO). In a world with rule of law, make the act of doing so for children as prosecutable abuse while keeping the drugs legal and available.
I’d take action well beyond shunning.
You might, If the neighbor wasn’t bigger/better armed than you, and the prospect of taking that child under your roof didn’t place you in a hardship that might jeopardize your own children’s well-being.
In an anarchistic world, I can’t imagine that I wouldn’t be part of a voluntary organization that would provide support if needed.
There’s all sorts of of ‘what if’ scenarios that could be thought experimented. It boils down to someone who would a harm a young child like that is a threat to a community. It’s as dangerous to leave them be as it would be to have a rabid bear den nearby.
The problem here is ignorance. Most people know very little about the subject, and would have to go out of their way to educate themselves. Whatever praise and status they’re receiving from their peers is because their peers think it aligns with their politics. Meanwhile, people writing critically about the subject are the ones receiving a barrage of shit.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/18/trans-activists-campaign-against-terfs-has-become-an-attack-on-science/
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/new-paper-ignites-storm-over-whether-teens-experience-rapid-onset-transgender-identity
*snickers*
The more I reflect on this the more I come up with the same conclusions Ron Paul comes to on abortion. This isn’t something the government or politics can fix, it’s a cultural issue that can only be resolved by a cultural change. The best way to mitigate and prevent this from happening is for it to be considered taboo within the culture.
/wistfully gazes off and then becomes red-hot angry thinking about the stated goals of cultural Marxism.
[ACC Entry] Should Transgender Children Transition?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/09/08/acc-entry-should-transgender-children-transition/
I don’t really care what Florida State, Clemson or Duke says about the issue.
My parents were AFU. I split as soon as I could. The government make it exceedingly difficult. It’s a long and sordid tale, but it helped lead me to libertarianism. I believe that age restrictions are almost all way too low. If a kid is, say, 16 y/o or so, they should be allowed to get a job without a permit, enter into contracts and pretty much handle all the things life requires. Some parents are that bad that this is the onlt way to re-start your life. I played hell being on my own at 16 back in the early eighties.
That trans bullshit is pure evil, however. Anyone who medically alters a sub 16 y/o, is unfit to parent a herd of cats, imo. The fuggin age of consent is a bare minimum. If you’re doing this with eight year olds, YOU are sick in the head. It’s arguable even at 16-17. My kid better have a convincing game if he want’s to go that way before he’s an adult ( he won’t, because I’m not going to groom him for that.)
Puberty blockers provide no medical benefit whatsoever under any circumstances. It would be like indulging a child’s body integrity identity disorder by hacking off their arm. It is an irreversible mutilation as a treatment for a (likely time-limited) psychiatric disorder.
Anti-vaxxers are not only denying their child a proven beneficial treatment, but they put others at risk by reducing the critical mass of vaccinated individuals; therefore I don’t see it as comparable.
I think puberty blockers absolutely are child abuse. No different than if a child with early-onset mental illness became convinced he was a cyclops so you paid to have his eye removed.
“Puberty blockers provide no medical benefit whatsoever under any circumstances.”
That simply isn’t true. It’s that there is no current way to accurately determine that circumstance.
I agree.
I absolutely draw the line on interfering with a child’s normal development or physical alteration in the name of gender preference.
By the same token, those who hypersexualize prepubescent children by having them compete in beauty contests or as we have seen recently, drag queen contests, are sick fucks and should be treated by society as such.
What is with the tough questions here? Should there be a law? No, I am going with no as I sit now and am with you on the number 2. The kid drew the the asshole parents card. Live with it in your new life in whatever you become and then write about it on Vox. On a personal note, I have a cousin who is slow. What most of us used to call retarded. It happens and he is a very nice guy and functional and has held a job all his life. He did have a thing for the women’s clothes and as he went through his state sponsored job program, he eventually found a state do gooder who encouraged him to always dress as a woman and get into hormone therapy. Dude was wearing a dress, heels and had tits at our Grandmothers funeral. That was 25? years ago and he now does not go through the state for work or wear dresses and heels and or have tits. I am not sure if he still has a thing for women’s clothes, nor do I care. So with that, should there be a law against State employees encouraging a (child) to go through hormone therapy? You’re fucking right there should be. Who the fuck does that cunt think she is? I wish I had been more involved in that situation. Why would a person in a position of employment placement even being getting involved with encouraging a guy to get tits when he is on the slow side of the spectrum?
We need a delete comment button. I may have laundered too much family laundry there. Anyways, thanks for the article Jar, that is a thought provoking topic.
Thank you for the article, Jarflax. As of late, I’ve been trying to be self-reflective and figuring out inconsistencies in my beliefs and this was one of them.
Also reading upthread and I do my best to MMOFB when it’s an issue I have no personal stakes/relations in it, but it’s hard when lots of people are emotional voyeurs ready to burn those who aren’t screeching loudly like them.
Leave it to the UK
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6401593/Whistleblower-teacher-makes-shocking-claim-autistic.html
I was just about to post that.
Reminds me of the old saying: It’s either an ugly dude or a beautiful British woman
WORLD’S YOUNGEST TRANS KID (WTF?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkcveiCnN44
Yeah, that’s fucked.
Welp, I almost be-clowned myself. I was looking for Eddie Izzard explaining what “transvestite” is and why wearing women clothing doesn’t necessarily mean you’re gay or trans or whatever beyond you like wearing women’s clothing, and that mentioning that more often might help some people.
Eeeexcept first search results are videos of him coming out as transgendered. So, point may still hold, but less convincing.
Wat??
Saw him live years ago; great show.
OK, his wikipedia page says “straight transgendered” – whatever that means. Well, I suspect it means he’s fucking with people.
It’s kind of hard to tell these days. Straight transgendered isn’t the terminology of the young woke crowd, but it’s still functionally the same as a category they do recognize. But the old queen can make me laugh despite his socialist politics or gender identity.
But he’s not a queen – AFAIK he’s thoroughly heterosexual. “Queen” is definitely a specific sort of “homosexual”.
I remember him discussing that in one of his routines.
We need a term for a straight male displaying Queenlike traits.
transvestite
Eddy describes himself that way.
See, I’ve seen him live and he doesn’t even do that. Sure, he’s “flamboyant” but nowhere near “queen” territory.
“I know queens. You, sir, are no queen.”
I thought that was metrosexual?
Look, your people just need to accept this. We straights are taking the term queen back.
Ugh, you can have it.
(And yes, that could be the subject of an article.)
That article must have Freddy Mercury both as its icon picture on the article list and something by Queen as its MFing theme music.
Yeah, the sort with bitchin’ riffs and a frontman who’s in the Top 5 all time in rock.
I saw him…what, ten years ago? Show wasn’t 100% but hey, that’s the problem with west coast, you usually get live acts exhausted and ready to pack it in…
Wife and I saw him…about 10 years ago, too. Weird, that.
Anyway, watching “Dressed to Kill” on dvd was my first date with the wife, so, ol’ Eddie has a special place in our hearts. “Disco is LIFE!!”, and all that.
Unfortunately, Eddie has fallen into the “Comedian gets pissier has he ages” trap, much like Carlin* did. I am probably in a very small minority here, holding this position, but it seems that many comics start just shitting on everyone as they get older-as if they had to hide their true feelings in their younger years, but, get far too comfortable being outright hostile towards anyone they dislike.
*Carlin in the 80’s? Laugh ’til I cry/still quote him. Carlin in the mid-to-late 90’s? “You are All Diseased”. Hard pass.
Wasn’t it Ed Wood who said that he wasn’t gay or trans or anything, he just liked wearing women’s underwear?
… Hobbit
Yes.
I think the Ed Wood movie was brilliant, and still my favorite Johnny Depp role.
Martin Landau was incredible as Bela Lugosi, totally deserved that Oscar.
I think the movie was a wonderful example of that time each one of us “went for it” in life with a perhaps unreachable dream, and managed to get a group of friends along in our journey — and maybe the dream never really became anything, but those were amazing times and great friends.
I really need to stop just quoting Martin Landau from that movie all the time and actually sit down and watch the whole thing from beginning to end.
Agreed, great movie. SP had never seen any of the actual Ed Wood oeuvre, so I thought it would be wasted on her. I was wrong, she found it delightful.
So silky smooth….
Doesn’t everyone like comfortable fabric?
Good read, pretty much mirrors my viewpoint regarding the issue. Also I suspect a lot of the instances of trans kids have a lot to do with the parents influencing them.
It has everything to do with the adults around them. Little kids don’t think about that stuff. It’s unusual for them to think about sex period, let alone what sex they are.
When I was a preschooler, we’d occasionally have dressup time. For some reason, I always dressed up as a woman: dress, fancy hat, necklace, gloves, high-heeled shoes the whole deal.
Fortunately, this transgender kids stuff wasn’t really a thing then. Even if it were, I don’t think my parents would have encouraged it.
Maybe my Dad wasn’t really pleased about my wardrobe choices, but at least the adults around me saw it for what it was:a four year old playing dressup.
Little Johnny’s really anxious. I know what will calm him down. Let’s shoot him up with some black tar heroin. Besides, he says he feels better.
That would be potentially less permanently damaging than puberty blockers.
“Art of the Narrative: How viral photos of suffering kids silence immigration debate” Article Review
+1 70 years of Pallywood
*lights straffin signal*
Asks aloud, “is this really a thing ? “
It’s Japan. Everything is a thing.
I still have a tough time coping with this .
Is there an equivalent of a Rule 34 for Japan?
They didn’t have to burn through 33 rules before getting to it.
It’s a Godzilla spit shield. Duh.
Doesn’t look like it’s wide enough to keep you dry in a heavy rain, the rain will run down through the head opening, the wadded up circle won’t fit in the plastic umbrella bags at the front of stores and elsewhere, and can’t pick up a replacement for ¥500 at any konbini.
Man, this was one I had to actually read and reread.
So much labor.
My position is that there can be no life changing, medically-optional procedures until the kid is an adult. If the kid needs a kidney or something, fine. But this tranny shit is just that.
Shit.
Ok, I know I’m going to take major heat but here it goes. I agree with you 99.99% of the time. What do we do with that 01%? I cringe when I think of it but isn’t it possible there is a fantastically small cohort of children who are genuinely gender dysphoric so their parents are making an informed, compassionate choice by allowing some type of treatment?
What do we do with that 01%?
We wait.
It’s absolutely likely that there is a tiny percentage of kids who genuinely have an issue. Kid’s brains don’t mature for a long, long time. No fucking way I could support surgery before they grow up.
Yikes, I hope there aren’t any Blackhawks fans here.
Hockey. That reminds me:
This article about Flyers coach Dave Hakstol was in the local rag the other day. What shocked me was that a coach who is only weeks into his fourth season, is the fourth most tenured coach in the NHL. And he may be fired despite getting into the playoffs 2 or his 3 years. WTF NHL?!
There is too much money in a lot of pro sports leagues to allow someone to waste time on “building” anymore.
Meh. In the NHL coaches are hired to be fired. The goddamn Hawks just fired one of the best coaches ever.
Here is a soccer team that has burned through 28 managers since 2011.
Lol. That’s pathetic. I hope it’s a high paying job!
OT: LOL you threw a token donation at a Republican just to cover your ass and now you want it back? Dumbasses. Your clumsy attempt to stay woke isn’t fooling anyone.
The mental contortions necessary to make a comment approving of capital punishment into ‘racism’ confuse me.
It helps if every thought you have revolves around ‘race’. And if you and your cohorts have near-total control of the mainstream media.
I’m on a college football listserv I check out sometimes, and just now, in a discussion on what it takes for someone to win a ‘Coach of the Year’ award, and how it’s usually awarded to someone who overachieves with what seemed should be a mediocre team, and the guy whose team goes undefeated usually doesn’t win, a poster contributed this chestnut:
I think that’s right. If a team is loaded with talent that Bozo the
Clown could coach, does he deserve the accolade? Sort of like Fox
News. They can put anyone in their evening slots and they draw as large
an audience. Do they deserve a news commentary award?
So again the opinion of this ‘truly intelligent’ person is not that there’s a problem with a monolithic mainstream media that clearly collaborates to decide what’s news and what the angle of portrayal should be, but that there’s actually one whole channel that serves as an alternative, and that so many morons will watch it that any untalented clod could be in front of the drooling masses, and not lose the audience. And dammit, there should be consensus, and we need to destroy anyone who thinks otherwise — these people are so anti-science!
I’m so tempted to respond with a fuck-off-slaver, but it’s supposed to be a completely apolitical site — and the listserv is kind of like hitting the bully back, so I’ll likely be the one to get in trouble rather than CNN Sam if I say anything. Maybe I should just do a Cathy Newman and respond, “So you’re saying that the Fox News audience is more talented than any other collection of viewers?”
FB needs to decide if they are making donations or bribes. When you make a donation the best you can do is hope and cajole. Since they want it back I assume it’s a bribe. They were paying for performance.
I just noticed you are back to Rhywun. I’m glad but what happened to the Baldwin permutations?
Always Be Changing.
Sounds like something a Baldwin character would say on Glengarry Glenross.
Nice article, Jarflax. It illustrates that the real world is a messy place, and various scenarios don’t fit neatly with our ideals, even if we’re doing our best to be principled and consistent.
My own view is that, if you accept that the main (ok, only) responsibility of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, then it follows that it should intervene in cases of child abuse: the rights of the child are being violated; it doesn’t matter, and, in fact, is particularly heinous, if those rights are being violated by the child’s parents.
Is hormone treatment and surgery for “transgendered” children abuse? I would argue it is, because it’s causing potentially damaging and irreversible long-term effects to the child without their informed consent.
I would separate treatments for transgendered children and vaccines differently. There’s overwhelming medical evidence that vaccinations are safe and that not administering them exposes the child to undue risk. The case for hormone treatments and gender reassignment surgery is much weaker. A significant number (I don’t have the stats) of transgender people commit suicide after reassignment surgery.
In fact, outside of the intersexed and dysphoric cases you idrntify, there’s evidence that the vast majority of “transgender” cases have some underlying mental illness – – and that’s where the focus should be.
That was a hell of an article Jarflax. It is difficult when you get to how kids should be treated. I think your fiduciary standard firs the bill. It will occasionally produce infuriating results but most of the time parents will make the right decision for the right reasons.
Nuance, Jarflax? Ain’t no one got time for dat! It’s either gas a tranny or suck it’s dick.
Goodnight Miss Calabash, wherever you are.
Good take on a tough topic.
The Charlie Gard reference was spot on.
My problem with it is that I want these people to die in fire sooooo badly that it makes me sure that I’m right.
So….FGM should be legal?
And, ha ha. Gillespie likes your shit. 😉
Yeah, my cultural predjices are flying their freak flag on FGM v circumcision.
The consequences are a bit more severe when they do that to the girls. Increased risk of infections, pain during sex, difficulty in getting sexually aroused – these are real things the cut dudes don’t have to deal with.
https://archive.is/7j6G3/57e8a3a7e2d7aec0130e9932590cbe252f6dc7f6
https://archive.is/7j6G3/3b422df8213762a4dac736f92cbdfa4e0322cab6
https://archive.is/7j6G3/3f53a65f244bcdb72856b93cf8dbecdf72ff6a84
https://archive.is/7j6G3/304d0b9ae69fbf48cdb432f7ecd61f00a9dee77e
https://archive.is/qvxuW/e8a20a99611643a6b66da072bf94823cd573873f
https://archive.is/qvxuW/a697decfc681d9b34ca011617bb7594e84a44330
https://archive.is/qvxuW/adbd0c24d1accd0f08c99d40ed16f71ecbece5e9
https://archive.is/qvxuW/a3024784bbd26d405c5af47ba5a406010b25df00
It’s a little late but I’ll take it.
I wonder at what age do most people feel like they have the rational thought of an adult. I felt like a child through 6th grade. In 7-8th, I felt like I was rapidly reaching adulthood. By the end of 8th grade, I had been mistake for a HS senior a couple times. High School seems like a waste of time. I would have been ready for college after 8th grade. It was nice to look older in my early teens, but I could see my hairline receding by the age of 16. For 11-12th grade, I looked too old to be a HS student.
When I think back on childhood, it all seems like a haze, almost like I was just floating through life like an NPC (for lack of a better term). But as early as I can remember, I do remember a distinct sense of injustice about being forced to go to school (I frequently pondered where “they” got the right to make me go to that miserable place).
I had some semblance of rational thoughts in my teenage years, but also a lot of “muh feelings” moments. I also started to see myself as more of an independent unit around this time.
In early adulthood (ages 18-21) I got into gun politics, which set me on the course to libertarianism. This was probably the first time I realized that you must have logical principles from which you derive your other positions; you can’t just go with your feelings and make shit up to justify it. I ended up reading The Trivium by Sister Miriam Joseph, which fundamentally altered my way of thinking for the better.
… Ugh, don’t remind me of my damn hairline. It started thinning out in my late 20s; now I’m 31 and the hair loss is quite noticeable. I decided that I’m never going to attempt to hide it, and if I get any kind of “cul-de-sac” going on, I’m just going to go Patrick Stewart mode and buzz it all off. Maybe grow some kind of beard to compensate.
Adulthood happens in stages, but if I had to draw a line, I would say around my 17th birthday is when I decided I was an adult. After that, I considered myself an adult regardless of what the law or society or anybody else said. Prior to that point, things get murkier.
There’s a critical mass of stupidity here.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/11/27/science-a-fetus-needs-permission-to-reside-in-someones-uterus/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget
Isn’t that basically Walter Block’s argument?
That leads to the whole ‘you should be able to abort a child up until the age of consent’ argument.
Very nice piece, Jar. Captures my own thinking well. Haven’t read the comments (late, and tequila), but will ponder.
Video from the last Glibertarians.com meetup.
Nice. The are lucky he didn’t pull a Tacklbery.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xilc4gERkVE
I don’t know what yall have been talkin about, but you’re all COOKS!…wait I think I mean CUCKS. Yeah, I think that’s it.
I don’t know if this was mentioned before, but apparently CNN is not woke enough for some people.
LOL never change
I had a crush on her in the 90s when she was a shitty tech reporter and I was ‘at that age’. Sad to see your crushes fall.
Apparently Soledad is the only racist she wants to see get air time.
Because some of her tweets are in the Farrakhan range.
Citation?
Read thru some of her tweets… EVERYTHING is racism.
Farrakhan was hyperbolic, but I’ve been shocked a number of times at the gymnastics she has gone through to blame racism for the news of the day.
I don’t have twatter. I thought maybe you could copy and paste something outlandish she put out.
I went and looked… holy shit! her twitter feed is 400 posts long on variations of the linked topic in the last 12 hrs.
Getting something that perturbed me weeks ago is too much effort. I seem to recall her bringing racism to the Kavanaugh rodeo.
Well, she might have gotten the wrong idea about white men with all those creepy fan letters I sent.
That does explain some things.
Well, she was either assuming your ethnicity, or, it wasn’t the letters that convinced her of your creepiness.
#JustSayNoToDickPics
We certainly wouldn’t want different ideas competing with each other. And heavan knows viewers are incapable of discerning a stupid (even hateful) argument from a well founded one.
/Sarc off
Well, we were too stupid to understand Obama’s message, so it only stands that we’re all too stupid to realize that Trump can hypnotize us.
I’m sorry. Did you say something? I was staring deeply into his eyes and I don’t remember anything after that.
That’s what she said!This joke has been deemed sexist. CPRM has been sent for reeducation.Code name: Snatch. Yes, I’m serious.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vermont-air-national-guard-commander-forced-out-after-f-16-romp-to-dc
That is the only reason anyone flies a fighter aircraft.
Getting the poon.
Someone forgot to tell Tom Cruise.
He was just pretending (to want any poon).
And yet, foregoing the sugar, apparently.
I wanna party like Charlie Sheen ??
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gscM2vpUXIc
They’re coming for our links!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/18/google-news-may-shut-over-eu-plans-to-charge-tax-for-links
I stand by my primary principle: I don’t give a damn what people do, so long as they leave me alone.
Terrific article. Thanks for sharing. Like others here, your fiduciary standard meets my own thinking.
As much as I don’t like it, I think I have to go with letting the parents decide. That said, wouldn’t the libertarian answer be to extend the fiduciary standard to its logical conclusion? If a fiduciary operates outside the interests of the principal, the principal can sue them, even at some future point. I think you can apply the same standard here. Snowflake wants to give little Johnny hormone blockers or refuse him a vaccination? Well, there’s nothing the rest of us can do to stop her. Oh, yeah, but if little Johnny decides to sue her into penury when he reaches 18, she best be ready to have her decision go to trial.
Absolutely, I had that idea in mind.