A liberal editor can't believe that, after Trump's re-election, people are no longer meekly submitting to the formerly all-conquering woke dogmas he espouses.
I've read quite a bit about Emmett Till, including his mother's book, and written a Substack on him. It's pretty obvious he was brain-damaged at birth and didn't know how to keep his mouth shut.
My teenage son asked me the other day if I’d heard of Emmett Till. We live in London and have no connection to the US other than being downstream of your cultural impact.
Something that fascinates me about Emmett Till that seems so obviously, like Matlock-ly, central to the story that wokesters will not let anyone talk about: what had gone on previously between the cashier girl and her boyfriend?
Why does that fascinate you? There are scores of books, mostly emotive, on the case. Meanwhile, thousands of women have been brutalized, tortured, violated, murdered and denied justice without receiving any attention. Most of their offenders walked free one way or another due to prejudice (they were just prostitutes or drug users) or just neglect, and the ones who were noticed often had their killers valorized and other people blamed -- see Winston Moseley, who admitted wanting to kill a white woman (then rape her dead body), who was the beneficiary of a long campaign by Abe Rosenthal of the NYT to free him because he was reeeehabilitated. The Times even gave him a big op-ed to plead his case after he had escaped prison once and kidnapped four new victims, raping one in front of her husband. Despite admitting to at least one other murder-rape, dozens of burglaries (as rapes were often prosecuted then), and many other rapes, thanks to the Times' continuing advocacy for releasing the worst offenders, he was up for parole more than once, even after the brutal escape. When Rosenthal was discovered lying about the "culpability" of Kitty Genovese's neighbors, he had to revise his book about disinterested witnesses four times, while never really admitting he was wrong. Rosenthal and the Times have killed more victims than the Klan did.
Emmett Till was killed in a very black city, Drew, that is about 90 % black today. Drew is in Sunflower County which is 69 % black today. Social control of the blacks must have been seen by the whites as tenuous as they were a small minority. Discipline would have to be firm to keep order. I am not saying that the whites were either right or wrong in Sunflower County but I can see their point-of-view.
As for Till, he was born in Chicago and raised there. Chicago was where much of the black Mississippi diaspora went after World War One. Till was a city boy, grew up in black neighborhoods, and lived in a culture where the boys hooted at women they found attractive. Rural Mississippi must have been a mythical place for Till that he couldn't understand. He found out to his detriment that the mores of the black ghettoes of Chicago were much different than the mores of segregated Mississippi.
I'm not a lawyer and don't know New York law but I don't think op-eds have any effect on the scheduling of parole hearings. They might influence the board's decision but in this case he was always denied parole.
I asked chatGPT and did web search to find references to the NYT and Abe's campaign to free this guy. Aside from publishing his stupid op-ed I can't find evidence of an ongoing (or even one time) campaign to free this scumbag.
Oh, yes, History is over and shouldn't be relitigated. Don't bring that up in the Middle East where the relitigating of history is a pastime of immense creativity. Who are those colonists anyway?
Earlier commenter TheNeverEndingFall does a take on W. F. Buckley's, "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" Your comment reminds me of Buckley's observation, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." The quote that seems most apropos to Leitch's piece is Ring Lardner's "'Shut up,' he explained."
This may be the greatest line in American literature. For those who don't know, it came from a short story in which a man was visiting a big city with his young daughter and they were obviously lost, so the daughter asked if the building they just passed was the building they passed earlier.
Lardner's son and namesake was the last surviving member of the blacklist
I think it's hard to overstate the impact that Elon Musk's liberalization of Twitter's content moderation has had. There were all these ideas that had been worked out on the fringes of the Internet, but were completely or heavily gatekept from social and legacy media. Now, for better (race realism, opposition to trans-mania) or for worse (anti-Semitism, vaccine quackery), they can spread like wildfire on Twitter.
The point being, 10 years ago, only someone who was *extremely* online was likely to be aware of e.g. race differences in intelligence. As Steve well knows, if you tried to explain to explain this in a normie space, you would be met with instant censorship and lynch mobbing. So your typical NYT liberal sportswriter could remain smugly ignorant. But there's no gatekeeping on Twitter anymore, so there's a major outlet for controversial ideas. Which really irritates the Bluesky libs: the thought that someone, somewhere is disagreeing with them on sacred values without being censored.
Notwithstanding the recent DOGE buffoonery, it's really quite astonishing how much impact Musk has had across several different domains throughout his life.
Those outsider spaces also drew smart people who enjoyed debating each other. So by the time the ideas were unleashed on the general public, many of the ideas had already achieved maturity and defensibility. So you had a general population with no immune system suddenly meeting ideas with high sticking power, an intense combination.
The problem with new twitter is exactly that if you like a realist tweet relating to race you will be inundated with insane level (trolling I hope) hateful tweets. I guess it's good to know how much irrational hatred there is out there, but I quickly find it exhausting. For a few days people were posting horrible things criticizing black people for dancing with joy after being graduated from college.
If we want to have a rational discussion and convince people (I think fairly of mild stuff like Steve writes) it doesn't help for one reasonable tweet to be surrounded by this.
Steve always jokingly says that people are afraid that if they admit that blacks weren't benefited by the racial reckoning in terms of traffic deaths that we'll have to have a holocaust or reinstitute slavery or something. His implication is that they can never quite explain how.
This twitter stuff (and how dumb was Musk for making it X?) just reenforces that emotion.
That said, I think Twitter was censoring too much.
Republicans are too cowardly. Here in West Virginia where the legislature is nearly 90 percent Republican, a ban on homosexual marriage would pass the legislature and be signed by the governor if the Republican really cared. Then they can let the Supreme Court do as it will.
Does West Virginia really have the millions of dollars to litigate something where they see an immediate injunction and then the Supreme Court refusing to hear it.
If it saves one little boy from being raped by his adoptive “parents” and trafficked around the pedophile “community” as has happened more than once, it would be worth it.
Does this happen more with gay couples adopting? How much more? We don't generally outlaw things for everyone because of small statistical associations.
I hope you're right. I was yelled at in the 1990s for asserting this. At the time I assumed it was just known but I had to admit it wasn't like I had checked stats or anything.
What is the argument against gay marriage? My impression when it all started was that it was purely emotional, like it just felt icky or like the gays were trying to make marriage less special for the rest of us.
Same sex "marriage" can never be marriage, and the State shouldn't be redefining ancient, august institutions that pre-date it, for a lot of social and jurisprudential reasons.
So it would be fine if we call it something else? Social reasons just means the normies think it'a icky but jurisprudential reasons might be convincing. Can you provide examples?
The "normies" are the ones propagating the species and not engaged in disordered and unhygienic activities. It should be their world, not the abnormies'.
I would be fine with legislators crafting partnership agreements that allow for rights of survivorship, joint property, and powers of attorney. But extending marriage to homosexual couplings makes no sense. Nor should they be allowed to adopt children or use birth surrogates.
Actually, Erik, while I don't oppose gay marriage, gays were offered civil unions a long time ago to make things such as social security more fair, but their activist borg decided they'd get more mileage out of demanding that people who religiously opposed it would be forced to bend to their will, postponing the benefits of civil unions to countless people who deserved and needed them.
Never presume and try answering one question for every ten you pose. I do hate that behavior.
"Same sex "marriage" can never be marriage, and the State shouldn't be redefining ancient, august institutions that pre-date it, for a lot of social and jurisprudential reasons."
Even heavily homosexual societies of ancient Greece and Rome didn't have homosexual marriage because two men sodomizing each other could not produce children no matter how hard they tried.
So it would be fine to have a legal structure like marriage for gays as long as they call it something else? If you aren't making a semantic argument, then you are begging the question (in the correct sense of that phrase).
And yet you didn't. In the negative space of your response I perceive a fear of answering. I don't have strong views on gay marriage. it's fine with me if your position is purely emotional. I also think gays would be just fun if they had to handle this all through some kind of other legal arrangement . Never been sure why they wanted the glories of divorce.
The argument against homosexual marriage is that it was considered ridiculous for hundreds of thousands of years. Even highly homosexual societies never considered homosexual marriage. Even someone like King Edward II of England never considered marrying Piers Gaveston, his romantic courtier. Only degenerate Europe began to mis-apply the term "marriage" for homosexuals.
If you're not at least Gen-X you probably don't remember when Gay Marriage, then called Civil Unions, was first proposed it was seen as a way to curb the rampant promiscuity in the gay community which was a major vector for the widespread transmission of AIDS. The gays uniformly rebelled against the idea in any form and argued uninhibited sexual freedom was a core value of the gay experience. I don't remember when the switch flipped but it seemed like as soon as the gays figured out that the Christers were proposing civil unions because they didn't want to include the gays in anything called marriage it was off to the races with the demand that any coupling of two adults be deemed a marriage (and of course every lesbian wanted her chance to be a bride)
Also unremembered by anyone not at least Gen-X is that by the early '90s, all the rage in gay publications like Christopher Street was the buzzword "transgressive." All of a sudden it was everywhere, so people who argue that the Gay insistence on marriage springs from anything but a desire to twit str8's have to contend with the ubiquity of the "trangress" meme. Right now in the Castro, there's a banner over a storefront that reads, "I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay," another example of bad faith strawmanning.
That the whole point of marriage is to provide a foundation for the raising of children. The point of gay "marriage" is to provide a social sanction for the sin of sodomy, in fact, that's the only reason the gays wanted "marriage" in the first place.
70% of Americans support same sex marriage and adoption. Get over it. Trying to use the Supreme Court to get around the 70% support is not a good idea politically.
Lots of people answer pollsters on questions like that to please pollsters who are almost all lefties. Only degenerates support homosexual marriage and adoption.
I don’t think anyone is actually afraid of homosexuals; that’s a coping mechanism. Most are disgusted by their acts. Lesbians don’t suffer from the same problem.
If this were true, Gavin Newsom would not have found it necessary to say to Californians, after they voted boy-girl only by initiative, "It's coming, whether you like it ir not!"
Conservatives are constantly exposed to liberal ideas. I get tired of Disney et al forcing their ideas on me but it does seem to toughen me up. I guess it's like how you adjust to living at a high altitude: you feel uncomfortable all the time but you also get stronger. Unless they seek out conservative thinkers, modern liberals can spend their whole lives at sea level.
If you are interested I recommend the YouTube work of "The Critical Drinker". It will answer your question, and as a bonus give you some movie recommendations and the early ones are funny.
I've often wondered if I had grown up in a conservative rural community if I would have got the same strange 'I can't believe the words I'm hearing coming out of your mouth' looks if I said something liberal or woke.
What isn't the real problem? I was just wondering if the reason I think this is a habit of the left is because I grew up in a place where the left was the majority.
I know you hate questions (for some reason) but what is the real problem?
But I don't hate questions. I just dislike the type of conversation where someone keeps asking people questions, then replies with more questions. It's a tactic drilled into politicians and reporters. I like banter, not feeling as if I've made an effort to present substance that is just ignored, or not sincerely challenged.
You're looking at a very limited number of my posts. Sometimes when a person doesn't respond to your post it's because they have nothing further. You get the last word. One of the only substantive replies you've given (aside from these ones criticizing my asking of too many questions) was that one play is irritating the other and not the other way around so obviously the one spewing bass notes into the other space is wrong.
I don't necessarily agree but I also don't have anything to say that I think would alter your opinion. In your mind am I obligated to finish with 'agree to disagree'?
First, I just joined. That's an explanation, not an excuse. I'll learn the etiquette and the people. Second, your response to my description of what happened in the Moseley/Genovese case was to simultaneously both question and misrepresent what I said (by consulting chatGPT?). I could say a lot more, but why bother, if you are asking me to educate you at length? I have already offered several sources if you're truly curious to learn more. I'm not here to write book chapters about subjects about which I have already written book chapters. But I am happy to begin again cordially. And no, I don't need any response to this offer.
The Internet has changed the game by not only expanding the formerly narrow range of "respectable" opinions but by allowing people across a large country and the world to get to know people with similar points of view. Mr. X in North Carolina is against quotas as is Mrs. Q in Michigan. Miss T in Florida notes that George Floyd died of a drug overdose and so does Mr. K in Oregon and Mrs. W in Missouri. People that gather at a site like Steve Sailer's become almost a community of people with similar perspectives.
yeah yeah I get it. You don't like being disagreed with. I'm a retard. There is zero irony in the fact that you and Trina are spazzing out about me disagreeing with you on an article Steve subtitled "How Dare you disagree with me?"
If people who disagree with you are automatically stupid, perhaps you should consider converting to libtard. That's their bread and butter.
I was merely relaying tactical information I learned from being a lobbyist while the gay marriage saga played out. You may have more satisfying online exchanges if you don't accuse strangers of "spazzing out."
"Name a cultural or political fight we were having 20 years ago and we’re probably still having it. Access to safe and legal abortion? The benefits of affirmative action? Whether L.G.B.T.Q. people deserve equal rights?"
We did not have a debate 20 years ago about "LGBTQ" people having equal rights. There was debate about social acceptance of gays and lesbians. The establishment tried to smuggle in the transgender and 50-genders stuff on the coattails of gay rights. Transgender athletes in women's sports for example, the majority has always been against it.
I remember reading an article on CNN's web site about the The Stonewall Inn and they were referring to it as an "LGBTQ bar." This was some time around 2017-2018.
The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar. I doubt anyone who actually went there back in the day would have ever thought of it as anything else. The media probably just started using Find-and-Replace in the word processing software.
Yeah he kind of slipped that in. It's a common trick to simplify a debate to a phrase and ignore the fact that people are discussing/debating what exactly equal rights means. Very few people in 1999 thought gays shouldn't have there right to make private contracts or serve on juries or vote. OTOH does equal rights mean that Joe Blow should lose his corporate job for 'dead-naming' a celebrity on twitter?
It's funny how for liberals "justice" is always their side of the issue and "injustice" is always the other side. In the same vein they are always on the side of "love" and "kindness"
I knew a guy at a former job who had this brilliant idea that all government policy should be determined by 'life maximization'. That is you always select the policy that results in more humans surviving into the future. He asked me to join his discussion group of enthusiasts and told me no one who had ever heard the idea had ever disagreed.
I asked him, could he not see the obvious flaw? If you made that the ultimate law of the land, the game becomes arguing that your policy, if you really think about it, is the one that results in the most life. You just move the argument one step down.
As someone who watched his grandparents live into their 80s, I don't even agree with your coworker's premise. From a utilitarian standpoint, the government should favor policies in which we drop dead when we retire
The government shouldn't fund research that has the primary benefit of extending the life of someone in retirement age. Medicare shouldn't fund treatments under the same premise
But most disease research would have a disparate impact on old people because they get the most diseases. There aren't a lot of diseases that are only for pre-retirement age people. Basically pediatric disease and testicular cancer (off the top of my head; I could have a blind spot)
>Tom Segura has a great bit related to this. Don't you want to live to 100? No. Have you seen 80?<
Yawn. Boringly non-insightful. Sure, if you're at least reasonably healthy it's better to wake up the next day than not.
I'm a 50's boomer, reasonably healthy and I expect I'll be able to do at least another 15 and die sometime in the 40s--though it could be tomorrow. I would very much *like* to get to know my--as yet non-existent--grandchildren, play with them, learn who'll they'll be and convey some old man "wisdom" to them.
But if God gave me a choice:
a) live healthily out past 100
or
b) guarantee that my kids marry well (i'm only 1 of 3 right now) have children and happy family lives and that America will purge the minoritarian--"diversity!", "must have immigration!"--loons and again be a normal healthy nation for my posterity ... but I die tomorrow
I'd happily pick "b".
I've already lived a good life and know my best years--knocking up AnotherMom, building and raising our family together--are behind me. And there are a *lot* more important things in life than me, me, me, me, me enjoying my "golden years" ... namely what sort of nation you leave behind for your family to live in.
Those are reasonable positions. In Segura's defense, that line is only the intro to the bit. It isn't intended as an insightful bit. It's just funny.
I on the other hand, have no kids. My dream is that AI takes over and restarts the process of evolution. I think humans are close to our limits WRT understanding the universe. I'm hoping someday the machines are capable of cracking it.
Going back a step to ScarletNumber's point (Gov't shouldn't fund research that has the primary benefit of extending the life of someone in retirement age) -- Medical research that leads to improved odds of citizens' living a healthier life for longer strikes me as a Good Thing. The special-privilege "socialism for the elderly" problem should be addressed by raising the retirement age. Which is happening, in various ways.
I don't think you appreciate how taxing blue-collar work is for people in their 60s; not everyone has a fake email job. As it stands, I'm going to retire in my late 40s and I'm a white-collar public employee
Google for the repugnant conclusion to see a way this kind of logic goes off the rails (or maybe doesn't go off the rails but leads you to something your moral intuitions will likely rebel at.)
Again, "separate nations!" Why would anyone sane and level-headed want to be sharing a polity with the likes of this putz? Minoritarianism is a civilizationally toxic brain virus. I don't think there is any "fixing" of this problem possible. You aren't going to restore normal pre-rise-of-minoritarianism sanity to all these infected people. All we can do is quarantine. Keep them from destroying us.
~~
I've come around to a reasonable solution: "Australia".
Ship all the good thinking "woke", "diversity is our greatest strength!", "immigration makes us stronger" minoritarians--and their minority pets--from all the Western nations to Australia.(American and Canada can absorb the based Australians.) They will proudly fly their fag flag, welcome every preversity, apologize for every sin of white people, smother themselves with blackness and immigration ... and die. But every other Western nation is returned to its rightful owners to be--and keep being--itself. America belongs to actual and loyal Americans. Canada for actual Canadians. Germany returns to being German. Britain, British. France, French. Italy Italian. Sweden, Swedish, etc. etc. etc.
Yeah, this isn't really fair to Australians, but let's face it the joint--which used to seem pretty based-- in the last half-century seems to sucked up all the toxic bilge from the American sewer pipe and turned into a woke joke. The actual Australia is being immigrated out of existence anyway, so why not get some good out of it?
I've read quite a bit about Emmett Till, including his mother's book, and written a Substack on him. It's pretty obvious he was brain-damaged at birth and didn't know how to keep his mouth shut.
My teenage son asked me the other day if I’d heard of Emmett Till. We live in London and have no connection to the US other than being downstream of your cultural impact.
You better eradicate that woke hive mind virus before it's too late save your son
Something that fascinates me about Emmett Till that seems so obviously, like Matlock-ly, central to the story that wokesters will not let anyone talk about: what had gone on previously between the cashier girl and her boyfriend?
Why does that fascinate you? There are scores of books, mostly emotive, on the case. Meanwhile, thousands of women have been brutalized, tortured, violated, murdered and denied justice without receiving any attention. Most of their offenders walked free one way or another due to prejudice (they were just prostitutes or drug users) or just neglect, and the ones who were noticed often had their killers valorized and other people blamed -- see Winston Moseley, who admitted wanting to kill a white woman (then rape her dead body), who was the beneficiary of a long campaign by Abe Rosenthal of the NYT to free him because he was reeeehabilitated. The Times even gave him a big op-ed to plead his case after he had escaped prison once and kidnapped four new victims, raping one in front of her husband. Despite admitting to at least one other murder-rape, dozens of burglaries (as rapes were often prosecuted then), and many other rapes, thanks to the Times' continuing advocacy for releasing the worst offenders, he was up for parole more than once, even after the brutal escape. When Rosenthal was discovered lying about the "culpability" of Kitty Genovese's neighbors, he had to revise his book about disinterested witnesses four times, while never really admitting he was wrong. Rosenthal and the Times have killed more victims than the Klan did.
Emmett Till was killed in a very black city, Drew, that is about 90 % black today. Drew is in Sunflower County which is 69 % black today. Social control of the blacks must have been seen by the whites as tenuous as they were a small minority. Discipline would have to be firm to keep order. I am not saying that the whites were either right or wrong in Sunflower County but I can see their point-of-view.
As for Till, he was born in Chicago and raised there. Chicago was where much of the black Mississippi diaspora went after World War One. Till was a city boy, grew up in black neighborhoods, and lived in a culture where the boys hooted at women they found attractive. Rural Mississippi must have been a mythical place for Till that he couldn't understand. He found out to his detriment that the mores of the black ghettoes of Chicago were much different than the mores of segregated Mississippi.
I think this is even shown in the very woke movie.
I'm not a lawyer and don't know New York law but I don't think op-eds have any effect on the scheduling of parole hearings. They might influence the board's decision but in this case he was always denied parole.
I asked chatGPT and did web search to find references to the NYT and Abe's campaign to free this guy. Aside from publishing his stupid op-ed I can't find evidence of an ongoing (or even one time) campaign to free this scumbag.
Do you have a reference?
Read all four versions of his book; read sixty-plus years of the Times advocating for releasing violent criminals, then get back to me.
What?
“History is finished. It’s literally the [current year]. Why are we re-litigating this?”, yelled the liberal standing athwart history.
Francis Fukayama told us that history had ended and that the whole world would become one giant liberal democracy.
It's not The End, especially Fukuyama' concept of The End (would gave been nice if he had been right), but an Eternal Beginning.
What happened yesterday? Nothing
Pete Rose, along with Shoeless Joe and Barry Bonds should be in the HOF. Have a nice weekend!
Oh, yes, History is over and shouldn't be relitigated. Don't bring that up in the Middle East where the relitigating of history is a pastime of immense creativity. Who are those colonists anyway?
It's incredible how many people can't imagine a legitimate counter argument.
Earlier commenter TheNeverEndingFall does a take on W. F. Buckley's, "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" Your comment reminds me of Buckley's observation, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." The quote that seems most apropos to Leitch's piece is Ring Lardner's "'Shut up,' he explained."
> Ring Lardner's "'Shut up,' he explained."
This may be the greatest line in American literature. For those who don't know, it came from a short story in which a man was visiting a big city with his young daughter and they were obviously lost, so the daughter asked if the building they just passed was the building they passed earlier.
Lardner's son and namesake was the last surviving member of the blacklist
People are arguing about "the true nature of Bruce Springsteen’s politics"? Who are these people? Don't they have access to cable TV or the internet?
The man was entitled to Woke Mind! What a let down.
I think it's hard to overstate the impact that Elon Musk's liberalization of Twitter's content moderation has had. There were all these ideas that had been worked out on the fringes of the Internet, but were completely or heavily gatekept from social and legacy media. Now, for better (race realism, opposition to trans-mania) or for worse (anti-Semitism, vaccine quackery), they can spread like wildfire on Twitter.
The point being, 10 years ago, only someone who was *extremely* online was likely to be aware of e.g. race differences in intelligence. As Steve well knows, if you tried to explain to explain this in a normie space, you would be met with instant censorship and lynch mobbing. So your typical NYT liberal sportswriter could remain smugly ignorant. But there's no gatekeeping on Twitter anymore, so there's a major outlet for controversial ideas. Which really irritates the Bluesky libs: the thought that someone, somewhere is disagreeing with them on sacred values without being censored.
Notwithstanding the recent DOGE buffoonery, it's really quite astonishing how much impact Musk has had across several different domains throughout his life.
Those outsider spaces also drew smart people who enjoyed debating each other. So by the time the ideas were unleashed on the general public, many of the ideas had already achieved maturity and defensibility. So you had a general population with no immune system suddenly meeting ideas with high sticking power, an intense combination.
The problem with new twitter is exactly that if you like a realist tweet relating to race you will be inundated with insane level (trolling I hope) hateful tweets. I guess it's good to know how much irrational hatred there is out there, but I quickly find it exhausting. For a few days people were posting horrible things criticizing black people for dancing with joy after being graduated from college.
If we want to have a rational discussion and convince people (I think fairly of mild stuff like Steve writes) it doesn't help for one reasonable tweet to be surrounded by this.
Steve always jokingly says that people are afraid that if they admit that blacks weren't benefited by the racial reckoning in terms of traffic deaths that we'll have to have a holocaust or reinstitute slavery or something. His implication is that they can never quite explain how.
This twitter stuff (and how dumb was Musk for making it X?) just reenforces that emotion.
That said, I think Twitter was censoring too much.
Try statistics.
" .. black people for dancing with joy after being graduated from college in a separate graduation ceremony which they had demanded."
Oh- they didn't mention that in the post.
I’d like to re-litigate gay marriage; more particularly, gay adoption.
Republicans are too cowardly. Here in West Virginia where the legislature is nearly 90 percent Republican, a ban on homosexual marriage would pass the legislature and be signed by the governor if the Republican really cared. Then they can let the Supreme Court do as it will.
Does West Virginia really have the millions of dollars to litigate something where they see an immediate injunction and then the Supreme Court refusing to hear it.
If it saves one little boy from being raped by his adoptive “parents” and trafficked around the pedophile “community” as has happened more than once, it would be worth it.
Versus all of the foster and adopted hetero parents who kill, assault, or molest children?
Bad as that is, it’s already accounted for. Gay adoption adds another cohort of innocent children to the rolls of the abused.
Meh, no, it wouldn't
Does this happen more with gay couples adopting? How much more? We don't generally outlaw things for everyone because of small statistical associations.
We’ll never know, because no one will ever dare study it.
> Does this happen more with gay couples adopting?
Yes.
> How much more?
I don't think there's been research on adoption specifically, but indirect evidence would suggest at least 10x as often.
I hope you're right. I was yelled at in the 1990s for asserting this. At the time I assumed it was just known but I had to admit it wasn't like I had checked stats or anything.
Such research would never ever be permissible. It’s punishable to even remark upon the possibility of it being true.
Here’s a recent example: it’s not for the weak of stomach.
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/georgia-couple-convicted-for-sickening-sexual-abuse-of-adopted-sons-get-100-years-in-jail-a-house-of-horrors/
Here’s another:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_J._Newton_and_Peter_Truong
I’m too disheartened to look for more.
Yeesh
What is the argument against gay marriage? My impression when it all started was that it was purely emotional, like it just felt icky or like the gays were trying to make marriage less special for the rest of us.
Same sex "marriage" can never be marriage, and the State shouldn't be redefining ancient, august institutions that pre-date it, for a lot of social and jurisprudential reasons.
So it would be fine if we call it something else? Social reasons just means the normies think it'a icky but jurisprudential reasons might be convincing. Can you provide examples?
The "normies" are the ones propagating the species and not engaged in disordered and unhygienic activities. It should be their world, not the abnormies'.
I would be fine with legislators crafting partnership agreements that allow for rights of survivorship, joint property, and powers of attorney. But extending marriage to homosexual couplings makes no sense. Nor should they be allowed to adopt children or use birth surrogates.
Actually, Erik, while I don't oppose gay marriage, gays were offered civil unions a long time ago to make things such as social security more fair, but their activist borg decided they'd get more mileage out of demanding that people who religiously opposed it would be forced to bend to their will, postponing the benefits of civil unions to countless people who deserved and needed them.
Never presume and try answering one question for every ten you pose. I do hate that behavior.
Again, what question am I failing to answer?
"Same sex "marriage" can never be marriage, and the State shouldn't be redefining ancient, august institutions that pre-date it, for a lot of social and jurisprudential reasons."
is a statement
Even heavily homosexual societies of ancient Greece and Rome didn't have homosexual marriage because two men sodomizing each other could not produce children no matter how hard they tried.
The argument is that marriage, by definition, is between one man and one woman
So it would be fine to have a legal structure like marriage for gays as long as they call it something else? If you aren't making a semantic argument, then you are begging the question (in the correct sense of that phrase).
Any question that begins with "so" can be safely ignored
And yet you didn't. In the negative space of your response I perceive a fear of answering. I don't have strong views on gay marriage. it's fine with me if your position is purely emotional. I also think gays would be just fun if they had to handle this all through some kind of other legal arrangement . Never been sure why they wanted the glories of divorce.
Again, Eric, stop asking endless questions without responding to any of the answers. I say this sincerely: it's compulsive of you.
I've come to the conclusion that Erik is a retard; it was much nicer here when they stayed over at Unz
I did respond to the answers. For example - question- "The argument is that marriage, by definition, is between one man and one woman"
Response- "If you aren't making a semantic argument, then you are begging the question (in the correct sense of that phrase)."
The argument against homosexual marriage is that it was considered ridiculous for hundreds of thousands of years. Even highly homosexual societies never considered homosexual marriage. Even someone like King Edward II of England never considered marrying Piers Gaveston, his romantic courtier. Only degenerate Europe began to mis-apply the term "marriage" for homosexuals.
If you're not at least Gen-X you probably don't remember when Gay Marriage, then called Civil Unions, was first proposed it was seen as a way to curb the rampant promiscuity in the gay community which was a major vector for the widespread transmission of AIDS. The gays uniformly rebelled against the idea in any form and argued uninhibited sexual freedom was a core value of the gay experience. I don't remember when the switch flipped but it seemed like as soon as the gays figured out that the Christers were proposing civil unions because they didn't want to include the gays in anything called marriage it was off to the races with the demand that any coupling of two adults be deemed a marriage (and of course every lesbian wanted her chance to be a bride)
Also unremembered by anyone not at least Gen-X is that by the early '90s, all the rage in gay publications like Christopher Street was the buzzword "transgressive." All of a sudden it was everywhere, so people who argue that the Gay insistence on marriage springs from anything but a desire to twit str8's have to contend with the ubiquity of the "trangress" meme. Right now in the Castro, there's a banner over a storefront that reads, "I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay," another example of bad faith strawmanning.
That the whole point of marriage is to provide a foundation for the raising of children. The point of gay "marriage" is to provide a social sanction for the sin of sodomy, in fact, that's the only reason the gays wanted "marriage" in the first place.
Now that makes sense to me as a counter-argument
I believe their ultimate goal was to be able to adopt.
That was certainly part of it.
70% of Americans support same sex marriage and adoption. Get over it. Trying to use the Supreme Court to get around the 70% support is not a good idea politically.
Lots of people answer pollsters on questions like that to please pollsters who are almost all lefties. Only degenerates support homosexual marriage and adoption.
If one’s position were true then virtually everyone under 30 is a degenerate. That is the demographic who are not afraid of homosexuals.
I don’t think anyone is actually afraid of homosexuals; that’s a coping mechanism. Most are disgusted by their acts. Lesbians don’t suffer from the same problem.
If this were true, Gavin Newsom would not have found it necessary to say to Californians, after they voted boy-girl only by initiative, "It's coming, whether you like it ir not!"
Conservatives are constantly exposed to liberal ideas. I get tired of Disney et al forcing their ideas on me but it does seem to toughen me up. I guess it's like how you adjust to living at a high altitude: you feel uncomfortable all the time but you also get stronger. Unless they seek out conservative thinkers, modern liberals can spend their whole lives at sea level.
One might want to give a few examples of the liberal ideas that Disney is forcing on everyone?
"What's this water you speak of, I don't see any water" says the fish.
Snark and sarcasm rarely work and they definitely do not work better than just listing a couple of examples. Try harder.
If you are interested I recommend the YouTube work of "The Critical Drinker". It will answer your question, and as a bonus give you some movie recommendations and the early ones are funny.
Being snarky about everything is not a reviewer.
You're a punk. And don't even have the guts to write under your own name. Coward.
I wasn't trying to convince you of something you already believe anyway.
I've often wondered if I had grown up in a conservative rural community if I would have got the same strange 'I can't believe the words I'm hearing coming out of your mouth' looks if I said something liberal or woke.
That is not the real problem.
What isn't the real problem? I was just wondering if the reason I think this is a habit of the left is because I grew up in a place where the left was the majority.
I know you hate questions (for some reason) but what is the real problem?
But I don't hate questions. I just dislike the type of conversation where someone keeps asking people questions, then replies with more questions. It's a tactic drilled into politicians and reporters. I like banter, not feeling as if I've made an effort to present substance that is just ignored, or not sincerely challenged.
You're looking at a very limited number of my posts. Sometimes when a person doesn't respond to your post it's because they have nothing further. You get the last word. One of the only substantive replies you've given (aside from these ones criticizing my asking of too many questions) was that one play is irritating the other and not the other way around so obviously the one spewing bass notes into the other space is wrong.
I don't necessarily agree but I also don't have anything to say that I think would alter your opinion. In your mind am I obligated to finish with 'agree to disagree'?
First, I just joined. That's an explanation, not an excuse. I'll learn the etiquette and the people. Second, your response to my description of what happened in the Moseley/Genovese case was to simultaneously both question and misrepresent what I said (by consulting chatGPT?). I could say a lot more, but why bother, if you are asking me to educate you at length? I have already offered several sources if you're truly curious to learn more. I'm not here to write book chapters about subjects about which I have already written book chapters. But I am happy to begin again cordially. And no, I don't need any response to this offer.
The Internet has changed the game by not only expanding the formerly narrow range of "respectable" opinions but by allowing people across a large country and the world to get to know people with similar points of view. Mr. X in North Carolina is against quotas as is Mrs. Q in Michigan. Miss T in Florida notes that George Floyd died of a drug overdose and so does Mr. K in Oregon and Mrs. W in Missouri. People that gather at a site like Steve Sailer's become almost a community of people with similar perspectives.
And yet I think it isn't an echo chamber. Lots of friendly disagreement here.
Some of it is unfriendly disagreement. I don't like guest007 or you.
I'd probably say 'right back atcha' if I had any memories of you from your handle.
Derek is a much more well-known and erudite contributor here than you will ever be
yeah yeah I get it. You don't like being disagreed with. I'm a retard. There is zero irony in the fact that you and Trina are spazzing out about me disagreeing with you on an article Steve subtitled "How Dare you disagree with me?"
If people who disagree with you are automatically stupid, perhaps you should consider converting to libtard. That's their bread and butter.
Derek and Tina have correctly pointed out that your Glenn Beck style of rhetoric is tiresome but neither one called you stupid
I was merely relaying tactical information I learned from being a lobbyist while the gay marriage saga played out. You may have more satisfying online exchanges if you don't accuse strangers of "spazzing out."
"Name a cultural or political fight we were having 20 years ago and we’re probably still having it. Access to safe and legal abortion? The benefits of affirmative action? Whether L.G.B.T.Q. people deserve equal rights?"
We did not have a debate 20 years ago about "LGBTQ" people having equal rights. There was debate about social acceptance of gays and lesbians. The establishment tried to smuggle in the transgender and 50-genders stuff on the coattails of gay rights. Transgender athletes in women's sports for example, the majority has always been against it.
I remember reading an article on CNN's web site about the The Stonewall Inn and they were referring to it as an "LGBTQ bar." This was some time around 2017-2018.
The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar. I doubt anyone who actually went there back in the day would have ever thought of it as anything else. The media probably just started using Find-and-Replace in the word processing software.
Yeah he kind of slipped that in. It's a common trick to simplify a debate to a phrase and ignore the fact that people are discussing/debating what exactly equal rights means. Very few people in 1999 thought gays shouldn't have there right to make private contracts or serve on juries or vote. OTOH does equal rights mean that Joe Blow should lose his corporate job for 'dead-naming' a celebrity on twitter?
> the long arc of history bends toward justice
It's funny how for liberals "justice" is always their side of the issue and "injustice" is always the other side. In the same vein they are always on the side of "love" and "kindness"
I knew a guy at a former job who had this brilliant idea that all government policy should be determined by 'life maximization'. That is you always select the policy that results in more humans surviving into the future. He asked me to join his discussion group of enthusiasts and told me no one who had ever heard the idea had ever disagreed.
I asked him, could he not see the obvious flaw? If you made that the ultimate law of the land, the game becomes arguing that your policy, if you really think about it, is the one that results in the most life. You just move the argument one step down.
As someone who watched his grandparents live into their 80s, I don't even agree with your coworker's premise. From a utilitarian standpoint, the government should favor policies in which we drop dead when we retire
As someone who can see retirement clearly from his current age I say to you , sir:
gulp
Just to clarify, how actively should the government support this? Not pay for medical care? Subsidized cigarettes and heroin? Logan's Run?
Tom Segura has a great bit related to this. Don't you want to live to 100? No. Have you seen 80?
The government shouldn't fund research that has the primary benefit of extending the life of someone in retirement age. Medicare shouldn't fund treatments under the same premise
But most disease research would have a disparate impact on old people because they get the most diseases. There aren't a lot of diseases that are only for pre-retirement age people. Basically pediatric disease and testicular cancer (off the top of my head; I could have a blind spot)
This doesn't refute my point
Lots of people under 65 get some sort of auto-immune caused IBD.
Incorrect.
>Tom Segura has a great bit related to this. Don't you want to live to 100? No. Have you seen 80?<
Yawn. Boringly non-insightful. Sure, if you're at least reasonably healthy it's better to wake up the next day than not.
I'm a 50's boomer, reasonably healthy and I expect I'll be able to do at least another 15 and die sometime in the 40s--though it could be tomorrow. I would very much *like* to get to know my--as yet non-existent--grandchildren, play with them, learn who'll they'll be and convey some old man "wisdom" to them.
But if God gave me a choice:
a) live healthily out past 100
or
b) guarantee that my kids marry well (i'm only 1 of 3 right now) have children and happy family lives and that America will purge the minoritarian--"diversity!", "must have immigration!"--loons and again be a normal healthy nation for my posterity ... but I die tomorrow
I'd happily pick "b".
I've already lived a good life and know my best years--knocking up AnotherMom, building and raising our family together--are behind me. And there are a *lot* more important things in life than me, me, me, me, me enjoying my "golden years" ... namely what sort of nation you leave behind for your family to live in.
Those are reasonable positions. In Segura's defense, that line is only the intro to the bit. It isn't intended as an insightful bit. It's just funny.
I on the other hand, have no kids. My dream is that AI takes over and restarts the process of evolution. I think humans are close to our limits WRT understanding the universe. I'm hoping someday the machines are capable of cracking it.
> I'd happily pick "b".
Same.
Going back a step to ScarletNumber's point (Gov't shouldn't fund research that has the primary benefit of extending the life of someone in retirement age) -- Medical research that leads to improved odds of citizens' living a healthier life for longer strikes me as a Good Thing. The special-privilege "socialism for the elderly" problem should be addressed by raising the retirement age. Which is happening, in various ways.
I don't think you appreciate how taxing blue-collar work is for people in their 60s; not everyone has a fake email job. As it stands, I'm going to retire in my late 40s and I'm a white-collar public employee
Only Canada has the vision to try to actually implement this policy!
Sadly the Death Panels labels stuck as the concept itself was fine
Google for the repugnant conclusion to see a way this kind of logic goes off the rails (or maybe doesn't go off the rails but leads you to something your moral intuitions will likely rebel at.)
LOL
Again, "separate nations!" Why would anyone sane and level-headed want to be sharing a polity with the likes of this putz? Minoritarianism is a civilizationally toxic brain virus. I don't think there is any "fixing" of this problem possible. You aren't going to restore normal pre-rise-of-minoritarianism sanity to all these infected people. All we can do is quarantine. Keep them from destroying us.
~~
I've come around to a reasonable solution: "Australia".
Ship all the good thinking "woke", "diversity is our greatest strength!", "immigration makes us stronger" minoritarians--and their minority pets--from all the Western nations to Australia.(American and Canada can absorb the based Australians.) They will proudly fly their fag flag, welcome every preversity, apologize for every sin of white people, smother themselves with blackness and immigration ... and die. But every other Western nation is returned to its rightful owners to be--and keep being--itself. America belongs to actual and loyal Americans. Canada for actual Canadians. Germany returns to being German. Britain, British. France, French. Italy Italian. Sweden, Swedish, etc. etc. etc.
Yeah, this isn't really fair to Australians, but let's face it the joint--which used to seem pretty based-- in the last half-century seems to sucked up all the toxic bilge from the American sewer pipe and turned into a woke joke. The actual Australia is being immigrated out of existence anyway, so why not get some good out of it?