atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#5790: I'm not surprised at all. Not even a little bit.

"I don't believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle in all cases." Even when that "principle" is freedom of expression.

This is 100% typical of leftist thought, and not surprising, but the person in question is an ACLU lawyer.

I'm relieved to hear that the entire ACLU isn't taking the stand that only some speech is protected by the First Amendment, but I have to wonder how far off from this goofball's opinions it really is. How long will it be before the ACLU decides that "hate speech is not free speech"?

* * *

You don't get to be prom queen unless you are very popular.
...[T]he takeaway from just about everyone, except for Berry, was that Bedford wasn't some "hotbed for racism" nor does anyone like hearing the beauty-queen-turned-Hollywood-millionaire talk about how hard her life is.
There ain't anything I can add to that.

* * *

"Anybody can write code." Some people can write code better than others.

* * *

A good discussion of how stupid people lead to fake news. I especially liked this:
This is something you see all over the news media. The people assigned to cover the news, rarely have any experience in the field. In fact, they rarely have any experience or education outside of media. Their alleged expertise consists of years reporting on topics they don’t understand. It is impossible for someone like Mx. Chang to ask sensible questions when she does not know the first thing about the topic. The result is she has to take everything at face value, repeating whatever is said to her.
And it's bleeding obvious when it happens, too. I don't know how many times I've read a news article or watched a report on TV and have been left with more questions than I had beforehand, simply because I know something about the topic under discussion and the reporter obviously does not. Usually they are questions that anyone with any knowledge of the subject would ask, too.

The self-styled smart people in the media, however, are grossly incurious about anything that fits their narrative. "Chemicals are bad," for example, is one of their big deals, so when someone comes out with a study that shows that XYZ might cause cancer, they blithely go right along and quote the press release. You know, like the whole "arsenic in drinking water" thing I talked about some weeks ago: there's no discussion of how much arsenic was found let alone what level the government considers safe; there was just the ludicrous assertion that "some" places had arsenic higher than "the federal maximum safety standard" or whatever it was they said. No numbers. No facts. Just ZOMGARSENIC!!!

And they wonder why we stop listening to them?

* * *

Last night Mrs. Fungus put on My Strange Addiction. It's not something we normally watch, but she was tired after a long day and didn't want to put on anything that required brain power.

This particular episode centered on a woman who eats dryer sheets, and a...person...who lives like a baby.

First off, that's a man, baby! He recently "transitioned to being a woman", but high school was when he first started having the impulses to be a baby. He loves to wear footie pajamas and sucks on a pacifier and wears diapers, and before I stopped listening he'd made it obvious that he at least wets them. The show gravely informed us that he wears diapers all day and...expends...at least three of them per day, which is "over $1000 per year" for diapers alone. That was bad enough, but both of us blew up when the announcer talked about how the guy tragically couldn't find a significant other.

Well, of course not! He's a frigging lunatic!

The show made it sound as if the "living like a baby" thing was the problem, the reason he couldn't find a significant other. But how badly adjusted are you if you A) pretend to be a baby and B) pretend to be a woman? If you wear girls' clothes by day and baby-like clothes by night, you deliberately wet your pants at least three times a day, and you sleep in a crib? That's not sane, not by any reasonable definition of the term. Yet we're supposed to look at this person and say, "Wow, that one peculiarity is really crazy!" while pretending not to notice the other peculiarity that is equally crazy. "I mean, it's obvious that she's not a baby!" is okay to say, but "I mean, it's obvious that he's not a woman!" is verboten.

See, that is what's wrong with society today: we are supposed to accept one of his delusions, but not the other, entirely similar, delusion. We're supposed to call him "she" and "her" because he decided he wants to dress up in girl clothes, and support that delusion other ways; but we're also supposed to react in shock that he has this other desire to dress up in different girl clothes.

And the discussion of this person's love live didn't delve into what sex he prefers. Is he looking for a woman, or a man? Because straight men don't generally want to date transsexuals, and I'm pretty sure that lesbians (most, anyway) are looking for actual women, not men who happen to try to look like them. (One would expect that having a penis would disqualify you for a lesbian relationship--and in that case why wouldn't anyone accuse lesbians of being "transphobic"?)

But let's flip that on its ear. Why is this a "strange addiction"? Clearly he identifies not as a man, but as a baby girl, so who are we to tell him otherwise? If he feels as if he is a baby girl in a grown man's body, isn't it our duty to accept him as he identifies, and to humor his delusions so he doesn't experience any bad feelings? Clearly we need to upend our society to accommodate people who identify as babies of the opposite gender lest we unfairly mis-gender and mis-age people, which makes us NO BETTER THAN HITLER--

* * *

The party can be rescheduled, yes. The eclipse, not so much. Sorry that doesn't fit in with your plans.

And the answer to the question asked is "No, she actually asked to reschedule the Moon."

* * *

Today I wait for the dumpster to be picked up. I'm hoping it'll be relatively soon. When it is, I will take recycling and donations over to their respective depots, and then cut the grass. While I wait, I will work on other things.

I managed to clear the garage to the point that the tractor and lawn mower are accessible. This was mainly accomplished by moving things around and getting rid of as much trash as I could, but it still leaves a sizable stack of nonsense. Argh etc.

Oh well. Could be worse.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments