The Creosote of Manifest Nonsense

I do not want to use Orwellian-the-world newspeak, but rather Orwellian-the-author plainspeak. But in a world of froth, babble, fustian, agitprop, bubble, and vain repetition, what I am about to say might come across like being slapped in the face with a cold, dead halibut. Some might even go so far as to say that I am guilty of “hate speech.” But I said I was going to try to stay away from the jargon of Orwell, and so wish me better luck.

Look, lords who walk the earth. You bought the tickets. You paid for them. You bundled us all onto the trains. We rattled along for many days and nights, across great chasms on trestles built out of semiotic arbitrariness, soaked in the creosote of manifest nonsense. The trains finally stopped, and we were all forced off. And my argument, such as it is, is this: “well, here we are!”

In a world where gender trumps sex, how can we avoid the conclusion that gender trumps sexism? In a world where women have historically been oppressed, how can we avoid the conclusion that the “powers that be” have finally achieved their final solution, which is, the abolition of woman. You protest, but I reply with my argument/observation, which is, “well, here we are!” They have already destroyed women’s sports (because there is no fixed category called “a woman”), and so I make my observation. There must not be any such thing as misogyny either. Here we are.

The president recently taunted Mika for going around in public bleeding after a plastic surgery, and all the people you might expect pulled their skirts away and said, “Suh! Well, I neva!” You just don’t speak that way about a woman, quoth Dianne Feinstein. To which the president might reply, “Woman? What’s that?” Did the senator from California just assign pronouns to Mika? And we all know that to assign pronouns to people is the height of wickedness, worse even than making observations about plastic surgery. We know this because all the best college campuses, the places where our very smartest people are gathered, whip themselves into a meringue if you use the wrong pronoun. It must be a big deal.

So here we are, out on the postmodern tundra. I wonder if anything grows here. I wonder also, if something grew — would we be allowed to eat it? It might be bad for us. The surgeon general might say no, no, no, no, no, no.

I offer this as a mere suggestion, something for you guys to reflect on. We can’t be where you guys took us and also not be here.

And I also offer a final observation, for now. Back when we were being bundled onto the trains, certain pious souls tried to stop you — you called them the religious right, and a lot of other names. But if you had a marked distaste for the religious right, you are going to hate the godless right.

56
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
8 Comment threads
48 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17 Comment authors
Katechodemosthenes1dSteve HJill SmithKrychek_2 Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
MeMe
Guest

I think we whip ourselves up into a “meringue.”

I much refer female privilege to equality. That doesn’t sell very well in the modern world, but I get to get off the train first and somebody is going to assist me. It’s quite reassuring to discover that some of these human quirks are biological, innate, and not cultural. They come naturally to us.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I used to like female privilege too, but it doesn’t pay the bills. And it is a two-edged sword. “Let’s be gallant to the ladies” used to also mean “Let’s not let the ladies into the workplace.” Which is fine until you find yourself with no gentleman protector and a living to earn.

MeMe
Guest

Kind of harsh truth Jilly, but female privilege really will pay the bills. My one grandma used to sell eggs and fried chicken. My other one used to do laundry at an army fort. They would have laughed at the whole idea of not letting ladies into the workplace. We have always worked, even in biblical times. Lydia of the purple cloth and the Proverbs 31 woman had some serious commerce going on, too. A lot of older men where I live hire women as companions, housekeepers, cooks, drivers, all above board and quite appropriate, simply because they need some… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

My mother had a college professor who candidly told the class at the beginning of each semester that he never gave a woman a final grade higher than a C+. The first female doctors and lawyers had to sue to be allowed to practice their chosen professions. Not everyone’s experience with so-called female privilege has been as positive as yours.

Jane
Member

I’m sure MeMe was previously unaware that women suffered disadvantage as well as privilege.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

No doubt, but if you’re going to talk about the advantages of sexism, it’s only fair to bring up the disadvantages too.

MeMe
Guest

Women are not disadvantaged, we are privileged. It is actually a rather insidious kind of sexism that comes along and insists on declaring that in the name of so called “fairness,” we must remind women about how oppressed, down trodden, and hated they really are. I mean, heaven forbid women ever celebrate who they are without any resentment or envy around who they aren’t. We simply can’t have that, that could lead to chronic contentment and an awareness of one’s own worth and value.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I think that cultivating contentment is important, no matter whether you are male or female. But whether women as a group are privileged depends a lot on the location and the time period in which they live. And, in some cultures, it depends on her social class. A low-caste woman living in India is not privileged. A high-class Saudi woman is privileged in one sense, but probably none of us would willingly change places with her. I like the traditional courtesies between the sexes. If a man opens a door for me, I will give him my best smile and… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

MeMe, would you have considered it privileged to have a college professor who wouldn’t give you anything higher than a C+ because you are a woman, or to have had to sue for a professional license because many states wouldn’t give them to women? And before you tell me those days are over, yes they are, and you can thank the feminist movement for making it happen.

MeMe
Guest

I consider it privileged to have not died in war, suicide,or a work related accident,and to have lived long enough and comfortably enough to be sitting in college someday bemoaning the injustice of a c+.

We can also thank feminism for teaching women to forgo marriage and children in favor of taking on massive amounts of student debt acquiring a degree we may never use.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

That is possible but not very likely. I looked it up, and advanced education is the biggest predictor of whether women will work outside the home. There is an 84% likelihood that a woman with an advanced degree (post-BA) will continue to work after marriage and motherhood.

But don’t you think it is unjust to refuse to give an A to a woman who has earned one? I quite agree that it is not the same thing as being killed on a battlefield, but it is still wrong.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

And I consider that you’ve changed the subject. Yes or no: Would you consider it a privilege to have been told you couldn’t make a grade higher than a C+ or to have to sue for a professional license?

Oh, and you’re now telling us you think it’s a bad thing that women have choices? Seriously?

Steve H
Guest
Steve H

Furthermore it’s quite a shame that women ever had to prove themselves worthy to the patriarchical judges and teachers in the first place. Tsk, tsk to even play a game that men made.

Jill Smith
Guest
Jill Smith

There is truth to that, but I think that was small comfort to women who wanted to be doctors Victorian women who wanted the chance at even secondary education, let alone tertiary, were told that schooling would make them less adorable. In other words, mopping floors wouldn’t diminish their feminine charms, but knowing how to remove a diseased appendix would. It is certainly true that poor women, and women abandoned by men, have always had to work, but it is also true that most of the jobs open to them were low paid and undervalued. It is a weird sort… Read more »

Dave Carnley
Member
Dave Carnley

Good words, Doug. Yes, here we are.

PB1
Guest
PB1

I’ve seen the same confusion occurring in the military. The military has two distinct gender problems. One is that men are sexually abusive, harassers of women who need to repent of their masculinity (especially those who hold traditional views of women). And the other is that it is sexist to acknowledge any differences in women, especially as it applies to their ability to perform in combat roles. So they can be easily intimidated and oppressed in a masculine environment (around the office), but not in combat, that’s different.

Lori
Guest
Lori

“But if you had a marked distaste for the religious right, you are going to hate the godless right.” I have been trying, for years, to explain this to liberal friends (I’m a politically left-leaning moderate). They think that everybody would be a good, progressive, socialist-leaning Democrat if not for religion making people awful. Perhaps. Or perhaps adhering to or at least having to pretend to adhere to a religion that requires concern for the poor, respect for human life, a commitment to racial reconciliation, and not responding to hatred in kind caused people to be (or, again, at least… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Respectfully, Doug, you and the gender activists are the mirror image of the same problem. The overwhelming majority of people clearly and easily fit into the categories of male and female, and their anatomy and self-identification match. However, there are outliers, who are outliers because of their own biology, and who won’t cease to be outliers because your theology says they shouldn’t exist. The gender activists make the mistake of ignoring the fact that they are, in fact, outliers, and the existence of outliers tells us little about the rest of the population. But your mistake is to pretend that… Read more »

melody
Member
melody

Krychek-2: You are obviously an “outlier” yourself; an “outlierologist”; or just a “lier”.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Krycheck, do you see this as an issue of biology or of psychology? In other words, is there a biological factor that makes someone, despite having XY chromosomes, feel ill at ease in his body, or is this a psychological quirk?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I think it’s probably mostly biological with some environmental factors thrown in. There’s some data that suggests it could be the hormones to which a fetus is exposed in the womb. But nobody really knows for sure.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: I think it’s probably mostly biological with some environmental factors thrown in. There’s some data that suggests it could be the hormones to which a fetus is exposed in the womb. But nobody really knows for sure. Krychek_2 is talking about his atheism, right? Under his materialistic paradigm, he could be talking about nearly anything. Everything must be explained in terms of reactionary matter in motion. He has no access to anything outside of biology and environmental factors. It’s all down to chemistry. It’s not as if matter moves proactively, with any intentionality, or with regard for any… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Not all materialists are determinists; there are some who believe in free will. It’s the debate between Einstein and Schrodinger; Einstein believed in free will (“God does not play dice with the universe”) and Schrodinger did not. If you’re going to insist on changing the subject every time I post, try to at least educate yourself on what materialism does and does not necessarily require so you at least look like you know what you’re talking about.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Not all materialists are determinists; As I’ve explained to Krychek_2 before, it makes no difference with regard to his dilemma. Indeterministic movements of matter also don’t provide any framework for expectation or intent. No hope for Krychek_2 there. Krychek_2 has previously conceded his determinist position anyway, so this is just another round of desperate flailing and distraction on his part, and a further blow to his credibility. Krychek_2 wrote: …there are some who believe in free will. Krychek_2 isn’t among them. So why does he bring it up? Besides, he may as well offer that some materialists believe… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

If Katecho’s memory is good enough that he recalls that I don’t believe in free will, then it’s also good enough to remember that I answered this question once before: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Just as there is a separate and distinct entity known as “society” that has different properties than the individual humans that make it up, so humans themselves have different properties than the individual atoms that make us up. To my knowledge, no atom has consciousness, but if you put enough of them together in the right order, they form a… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: If Katecho’s memory is good enough that he recalls that I don’t believe in free will, then it’s also good enough to remember that I answered this question once before: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I certainly remember Krychek_2 attempting to use an emergence argument before, and I remember how easily it was refuted by simply observing that, no matter how one stacks the atoms, they never cease to be purely reactionary. The equations of their motion never relax to permit atoms to be influenced by abstractions like morality, argument, desire or purpose.… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, you’re very silly. Thank you for sharing.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Katecho, you’re very silly. Thank you for sharing.

As I was saying about Krychek_2’s flight response…

I’m sure he’ll wander back, as though nothing happened, just as soon as he thinks everyone has forgotten about his head-on collision with his own worldview.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, you’re very silly. Thanks for sharing.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I have argued on this very board with Calvinists who don’t believe in free will. What am I missing here? Aren’t you and Krycheck both believing in determinism under different names and theologies?

Katecho
Member

Jill Smith wrote: I have argued on this very board with Calvinists who don’t believe in free will. What am I missing here? Aren’t you and Krycheck both believing in determinism under different names and theologies? Jill, and even some Calvinists, need to take care not to cling to a straw man version of Calvin. Krychek_2 believes in an impersonal, mechanistic, materialistic, reactionary, determinism, without any goal or purpose, let alone any culmination in justice. I believe in a personal, purposeful, and sovereign determinating God who works through, and resolves, all things in proper judgment and reconciled accounting. I believe… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

K2,

You should take a closer look at the data. Twin studies, sibling studies, and genetic analysis indicate that “homosexuality” has almost no genetic or shared womb experience basis. Less than almost any other trait studied. The same is true of transgendered, except for a general linkage with severe mental illness Due to the absolute dearth of evidence for any sort of hereditarian or genetic explanation, Greg Cochran has proposed, and thoroughly argued for, the pathogen (or gay germ) theory, but I think reality is likely more mundane.

The fact is that people are not “born gay”.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Demosthenes, you’re overlooking a fairly crucial factor, and that is that homosexuality is not the only sexual orientation that requires an explanation; so does heterosexuality. And whichever factor or group of factors causes one more than likely causes the other. For example, the presence of a Y chromosome produces a male; the absence of it produces a female. In both cases, the “cause” is the Y chromosome; its presence or absence determines the outcome. So you can’t have it both ways. If straight people are born straight, then gay people are born gay; if gay people are gay because of… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

K2, I’m not overlooking anything, there is no such thing as “sexual orientation.” Under certain cultural, environmental, emotional and hormonal conditions people can be attracted to people of their own sex. This isn’t some new esoteric knowledge, it has been understood since antiquity. Some cultures have embraced it others have reviled it, but no one denied it. The Christian west has long maintained a strong taboo against sexual contact with your own sex (though it has been stronger or weaker in different eras) and those who have internalized that taboo are trying to put a hereditarian determinist spin on it,… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

There is a sexual orientation in the same sense that some people prefer chicken over beef, but since we don’t have a tradition of discriminating against people based on their food preferences (unless you’re Hannibal Lector), nobody really cares that some people like chicken and others prefer beef. And it might be interesting to find out if a preference for beef is biological or environmental but again, no one cares, so no one is thinking about it or doing any research on it. Sexual orientation is only an issue because people choose to make an issue of it. But you’re… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

K2, This is fine, though it would be considered sacrelidge to most of your ideological brethren: “There is a sexual orientation in the same sense that some people prefer chicken over beef.” Though if should be modified that some may like chicken one night and steak another, or love chicken but eventually get a taste for steak. It should be noted that some people are revolted by the food choices others and there are quite a lot of occassions when I could be “discriminated against” for food preference. Try eating beef in parts of india, or tell everyone about your… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

My “ideological brethren” are all over the map on issues of sexual orientation. Some of them believe it’s completely biological, some think it’s completely environmental and some think it’s a combination. Some think it’s fluid and some think it’s cast in stone and some think it may change over time. The only real issue on which all of us would agree is that there is no moral implication to preferring and engaging in same-sex sexual behavior per se; it can be immoral if it involves, i.e., fraud or coercion or children, but that would be true of heterosexual behavior as… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

The only real issue on which all of us would agree is that there is no moral implication to preferring and engaging in same-sex sexual behavior per se;

Krychek_2 isn’t saying much here. In materialism, there is no moral implication to anything. There aren’t even any expectations, let alone moral ones.

Any notion of moral preference amounts to no more than Krychek_2’s preference for chicken over beef. Accidents and reactions happen, in whichever directions the laws of matter permit them to happen. Krychek_2’s attempt to overlay any of it with expectations is just an exercise in self-contradiction.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

If you concede that hormonal influences may be a factor, aren’t you thereby conceding that there may be a biological basis to some people’s same sex attractions? My problem with completely denying the existence of homosexual orientation is when it leads to a belief that we all start life with identical sexual impulses and that any deviation from the norm is the product of wicked choices. As if, at puberty, we attend a sexual smorgasbord and that some people choose to be homosexual even though they could just as easily and naturally have decided to be straight. I think there… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

Jilly, The way this comment system works on mobile I really can’t tell if I am being responded to or not. Could I kindly ask that you include a salutation if you are addressing me? I would hate to miss one of your comments if I am able to respond. I absolutely believe that there is a “biological” basis to every persons attractions, of every sort. I also believe there is a biological basis to every thought in my head, every feeling I experience, etc. I don’t think the biological is all that there is, but it is Gnostic to… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Hi Demo, I often wonder that, in all the discussion, so little attention is paid to people who seem to experience no sexual attractions at all. We only see this as a moral problem when, in the context of marriage, it keeps one spouse from being available to the other. And yet I am sure it is more common in the general population than homosexuality. I think that people can suspect this about themselves yet assume that marriage will be an automatic cure. And yet surely it is an equally disordered state, and is not likely to be amenable to… Read more »

demosthenes1d
Member

Jilly, I think asexuality, especially in young men, is quite rare. In older people it is more common due to hormonal atrophy and accumulated habit and bad experience. Young women are more likely to not have strong physical sexual urges and attractions (though some are quite overwhelmed by their desires) but they still usually have a desire for emotional intimacy that a man can fulfill. People often thing of effeminate men as being less hormonally driven than “normal” gynophile men. However, “gay” men are far more promiscuous than “straight” men, often many times more promiscuous. The easy availability of sex… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: So you can’t have it both ways. If straight people are born straight, then gay people are born gay; if gay people are gay because of environmental factors, then so are straight people. So pick. You can’t mix and match to achieve a desired result; it has to be the same for each. Krychek_2 is guilty of importing the limitations of his materialistic worldview into our worldview. Materialism provides no access to a concept of biological design or biological intent. Once again he is left with only the biological tautology that: “whatever is, is”. If a homosexual variant… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, you’re very silly. Thank you for sharing.

Katecho
Member

These dismissive, non-answers from Krychek_2 are powerful demonstrations that his materialism really has nothing constructive to offer. Whatever is, is. Chicken. Beef. Take your pick. Krychek_2 has nothing more to say.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

No, they’re a demonstration that I’m on hiatus from answering a fool according to his folly.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: No, they’re a demonstration that I’m on hiatus from answering a fool according to his folly. Krychek_2 skipped the step where he needed to demonstrate that I’m a fool. So it just looks like more evasion. The dilemma that I’m raising is not new. Materialists would love to have an answer to it, I’m sure. Some materialists are just better at acknowledging the problem than Krychek_2. They are more willing to follow the implications of their materialism, into nihilism. But Krychek_2 is still living in the land of self-contradiction and denial, as he continues to invoke moral expectations… Read more »

Krychek-2
Guest
Krychek-2

But why should I trouble myself to demonstrate you’re a fool when you already do such a good job demonstrating it for me? Sorry but if you’re going to leave that door wide open like that, expect me to walk in. As I’ve said before, my real objection to inter acting with you is two fold. First, I already did , multiple times, and I’ve simply lost patience with your repeated claims that I havent. You may enjoy repeating yourself multiple times but I don’t. And second, I’m not going to help you hijack threads. My worldview is not the… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

And why would I bother to demonstrate that you’re a fool when you’re doing such a great job of demonstrating it yourself? (Sorry, if you’re going to leave a door wide open like that, expect someone to walk through it. My unwillingness to respond to you substantively is for two reasons. First, I’ve simply lost patience with your false claims that I haven’t previously given substantive answers, and I see no point to repeating myself if you didn’t get it the first or fifth time. And second, I’m not willing to help you hijack a thread. My world view is… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: And why would I bother to demonstrate that you’re a fool when you’re doing such a great job of demonstrating it yourself? Krychek_2 doesn’t even do me the courtesy of accusing me of anything specific enough to defend against. At this point, he seems more interested in grade school playground name calling tactics than in anything constructive or helpful. Krychek_2 wrote: First, I’ve simply lost patience with your false claims that I haven’t previously given substantive answers, and I see no point to repeating myself if you didn’t get it the first or fifth time. I’ve refuted whatever… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

No, they’re a demonstration that I’m on hiatus from answering a fool according to his folly.

I also wanted to point out that Krychek_2 is, once again, borrowing a prescriptive principle from someone else’s worldview. In materialism, there is no expectation that one not answer a fool, let alone not be one.

Krychek_2 is so easily enticed by the lure of expectation. It’s as if he’s trying to please someone, or seem more approved than someone else. Yet he has no idea why.

Larry Geiger
Guest
Larry Geiger

Are thieves outliers?
Are murderers outliers?
Are corporate raiders outliers?
Are bullies outliers?
Are adulterers outliers?

We are all outliers. It’s called sin. It lives in our hearts. Pray.

timbushong
Member

“Here we are.”
And here we go!

Great post, Doug.

Dan Jones
Member

Our appetite for sex is beginning to remind me very much of Mr. Creosote of Monty Python fame. Another bucket for Mr. Creosote, please! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxRnenQYG7I

Ginny Yeager
Guest
Ginny Yeager

Really enjoyed this post. It made me hit the dictionary–always a good thing. The train and tundra metaphors are great. Opportunities to score abound when Team Left says gender pronouns are a penalty card.

When we put our kids in government schools, we’re putting them on the train voluntarily.

I’m not sure the Lords of the Earth will despise the godless right any less. There is no understanding people given over to such things, who hate the good and love the bad. “Depressed by the relentless cheeriness and productivity… they saw around them.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIO4oSLwK3A