Where Do I Go to Get My Reality Back?

Just a micro-rant.

I assert the right, and the normative precedent, to refuse to treat a man as a woman.  I am under no obligation to entertain the notions of the insane or the hostile.

Now this is not a license to be rude.  I treat everybody with some respect, more when I remember my manners, and less when I am misbehaving.  As an example, I furiously oppose the gay agenda, but I have no problem maintaining friendly social interaction with gay individuals.

“A person is not a policy” is one of my handy formulations for as Dennis Prager says, separating the micro from the macro.  It is not inconsistent to treat the two regimes differently.  Rather, it is entirely consistent with a larger truth, that each of us is an individual composed of that within the skin and whatever animating force you may perceive.  Self-perception is a limited and murky thing — how much moreso must be our percetion of others?

Yet good manners and civilization itself are aspects of the great bargain between the self and the other.  Every individual is always outnumbered by the other, on the order of nearly eight-billion-to-one these days.  We as humans have inherited and developed complex social abilities; perception, assumption, recognition, dissembly, acceptance, alliance, opposition, warfare, economics to include any fashion of value-based decision-making (including sexual market value and a host of things denominated in currencies other than money), and so on.  This machinery hums along in the background, largely unperceived by us.  We operate day-to-day as being who believe in free will and who believe that we make our decisions, but who mostly follow rails laid down in our DNA.  In my pocket analysis of free will, I would say that we do possess it, and may at times, *given sufficient volition* exercise it in any realm, but that we rarely do.  We cruise about on autopilot most of the time.  Subroutines.  We reserve our front-of-the-brain no-kidding thought for those most rare of circumstances.

Societal norms, like fashion, constitute a language or a system of languages, which we all inherit and/or acquire.  We all speak this language, or this type of language, to differing degrees, and with different accents.  Boundaries are hard to pin down — “wash” vs “warsh”.  Yet boundaries do exist, clearly at a sufficiently zoomed-out perspective.  “Lavar”.

When a man with societal, perceptual, and mental issues decides to live as a woman, he has that right.  But we are not beholden to play along.  Why?  What this person is doing is as much an offense as a salesman who will not go away, will not shut up, and who insists that you let him into the house.  His foot is in the door, and now his briefcase, and he shoves and cajoles his way in, all the while insisting that you are just being rude for trying to keep him out.  By exploiting various social insecurities, a hostile actor will make you feel guilty, as if you have greatly wronged or are now wronging the hostile interloper.

We cannot have a society if we have no social norms.  We cannot live a life except as a pre-social hunter-killer (there will be no safety in which to gather, nor place to bring that which is gathered), if we have no power to levy expectations upon each other.  Well, which expectations?  Those which have been proven to work by millions of years of figuring out that very problem.

Conservatism in my hands is that which asserts the factual correctness of our “traditional” answers to the burning questions of evolution:  What are we?  How shall we be?  And so we are as man and woman, with form following function, and function following form, optimized but only to an optimal degree for different sets of tasks.  Societal roles both give and take, and only a fool tries to ignore half of the equation in the name of answering the whole  Only a mighty collection of fools attempts to re-define the mathematical operators in order to make the first fool’s answer somehow correct.  To attempt to enforce this “blue math” requires a degree of hostility to society and the individuals within it that justifies a firm, resolute, refusal to even entertain their arguments.

It is neither rude nor anti-social to insist that the insane do not dictate reality to the sane.  The damaged and broken should be tolerated as the individuals that they are — they can perhaps be nothing more.  But an army of enablers with nothing more broken than education/information or moral standing are due nothing but a cold shoulder or hot lead.

The salesman is now in the foyer, and we have some decisions to make.

14+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

18 thoughts on “Where Do I Go to Get My Reality Back?”

  1. Thanks for putting some meat on the bones of my undefined but real sense of social agency and responsibility towards the broken few.  “Cold shoulder or hot lead.”  Indeed, especially for those agents vigorously promoting social decay.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  2. THIS problem is wholly caused by government. Was a time when each of us was allowed to make what associations we wished, as we wished. So if you wished to be gay, and live with another gay, there was no restriction to that. You were accorded all the rights of a citizen. This included things like inheriting when one died and left his/her things to the other, and visiting when one was hospitalized.

    Then government came along and saw to it that we had “privacy” – in the form of the obnoxious HIPPA rules. AND families who hated “the gay uncle” suddenly felt they had a right to his property when he died and left it to “a stranger” – with whom he/she had happened to live for 30-40 years. That there is no right for government to infringe upon our liberty in this way is of no account – it went ahead and did it anyway.

    So the gays complained. And government then created “gay rights”. THAT has now gone SO off the rails that we treat little kids as if they had no gender, or were not the gender they are. Because kids are so smart, don’t-cha-know. (See that little twirp lecturing people at the mostly useless UN about “climate change”, about which she is an expert.)

    So get the government out of our lives and perhaps we can go back to rational living, making social decisions without the help of a myriad of idiot non-elected bureaucrats.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. Devereaux:
    THIS problem is wholly caused by government.

    Well, government enacted crazy rules, but government was in the back of the Leftist train.

    Up in front were Big Media, Big Education and the Courts.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. I am currently reading Douglas Murray’s The Madness of Crowds, which dissects the self-evident falsehoods we are expected to believe (or else) regarding homosexuals, women, race, and transgender.  In the introduction, he notes the similarity between being forced to accept falsehoods and the ultimate reason for propaganda in a totalitarian state.

    It is the central cause of the ugliness of both online and real-life discussion.  For we are being asked to perform a set of leaps and jumps which we cannot, and are perhaps ill-advised to make.  We are asked to believe things that are unbelievable and being told not to object to things (such as giving children drugs to stop them going through puberty) which most people feel a strong objection to.  The pain that comes from being expected to remain silent on some important matters and perform impossible leaps on others is tremendous, not least because the problems (including the internal contradictions) are so evident.  As anyone who has lived under totalitarianism can attest, there is something demeaning and eventually soul-destroying about being expected to go along with claims you do not believe to be true and cannot hold to be true.  If the belief is that all people should be regarded as having equal value and be accorded equal dignity, then that may be all well and good.  If you are asked to believe that there are no differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality, men and women, racism and anti-racism, then this will in time drive you to distraction.

    It is ultimately about power: the power of an élite to force people to conform to beliefs which are patently absurd.  It, like Big Lie propaganda, keeps the masses quiet, their heads down, and in line.

    7+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. The Murray quote brings to mind Dalrymple’s take on this:

    Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

    We are being asked to endorse obvious lies with enthusiasm. These hate facts are too numerous to list but you all know what they are. A society that denies reality will ultimately fail. If we can’t turn this around we are doomed to decline, a slow decline if we’re lucky. I am not optimistic.

    I’ve not read Murray’s book but have heard him discuss it in interviews. He’s a bit squishy regarding certain matters. Not exactly saying he’s part of the surrender party but he’s too supportive of détente with the forces of darkness.

    6+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. Based on an essay I saw, Douglas Murray propagates at least one big lie himself.  Probably the biggest. That the meaning and purpose of marriage is not related to its being between a man and a woman.  That is one giant, destructive, absurd denial of reality. Funny he doesn’t see that.

    Don’t tell me that there are real and important differences between men and women, and then try to say they have nothing to do with why marriage is between a man and a woman. If the differences don’t matter in making a family, they sure don’t matter in bathrooms or sports.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  7. Jojo:
    Based on an essay I saw, Douglas Murray propagates at least one big lie himself.  Probably the biggest. That the meaning and purpose of marriage is not related to its being between a man and a woman.  That is one giant, destructive, absurd denial of reality. Funny he doesn’t see that.

    Don’t tell me that there are real and important differences between men and women, and then try to say they have nothing to do with why marriage is between a man and a woman. If the differences don’t matter in making a family, they sure don’t matter in bathrooms or sports.

     
    Douglas Murray is openly gay according to his Wiki page. I am sure his ideas on marriage stem from that.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  8. Yes I know he is gay. Doesn’t preclude being honest and logical. His deficiency on this issue is perfectly understandable, but to me reflects poorly on his credibility.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. 10 Cents:
    Douglas Murray is openly gay according to his Wiki page. I am sure his ideas on marriage stem from that.

    There is a long section in the “Gay” chapter of The Madness of Crowds titled “Gays Versus Queers” in which he distinguishes two sub-groups among the “G” of the rainbow alphabet soup.

    In the first are those who believe that gays are — and should be — just like everybody else.  That they will win any and all remaining rights battles by demonstrating that nothing makes them different from their heterosexual friends and neighbours.  Just like straight people, gays can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and eventually produce and raise children like everybody else.

    [The other] side might be described (and self-described) not as ‘gay’ but as ‘queer’.  It was — and is — the group of people who believe that being attracted to the same sex should merely be the first stage in a wilder journey.  The first step not just to getting on with life but to transgressing the normal modes of life.  Whereas gays may just want to be accepted like everyone else, queers want to be recognized as fundamentally different to everyone else and use that difference to tear down the kind of order that gays are working to get into.

    Under this terminology, I believe that Murray would call himself “gay” but not “queer”.  He goes on to note,

    At almost any demonstration for gay rights today — most prominently the ‘gay pride’ marches which happen around the world — the call for legal equality (now achieved in most Western countries) is mixed in with things that would cause many homosexuals as well as heterosexuals to blush.  There is nothing wrong with people enjoying whatever kinks they like in the privacy of their homes.  But you don’t have to be prudish to feel that the phalanxes of people in such protests dressed in fetish gear, in chaps and more, is off-putting to whatever cause they are hoping to advance.  If the black civil rights movement had included a fetish section it would have been considerably easier to ignore its moral force.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  10. John Walker (Quoting Murray):
    Just like straight people, gays [would like to demonstrate that they] can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and **eventually produce and raise children like everybody else**.

    Yeah, no.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  11. Haakon Dahl:

    John Walker (Quoting Murray):
    Just like straight people, gays [would like to demonstrate that they] can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and **eventually produce and raise children like everybody else**.

    Yeah, no.

    Did that sound “queer” to you, Haakon?

    0

  12. Jojo:
    Based on an essay I saw, Douglas Murray propagates at least one big lie himself.  Probably the biggest. That the meaning and purpose of marriage is not related to its being between a man and a woman.  That is one giant, destructive, absurd denial of reality. Funny he doesn’t see that.

    Yeah, that’s not the only one. He also is an IQ denier. Don’t know about the book but he came out loud and proud as “we shouldn’t ever talk about IQ differences” in interviews.

    And he’s supposed to be the champion of reality. More of a blank slater if you ask me.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  13. drlorentz:
    He also is an IQ denier. Don’t know about the book but he came out loud and proud as “we shouldn’t ever talk about IQ differences” in interviews.

    And he’s supposed to be the champion of reality. More of a blank slater if you ask me.

    There is a long section on IQ in the “Race” chapter of The Madness of Crowds, but I haven’t gotten to it yet.  The sense I got from Murray’s interview with James Delingpole:

    is that he probably believes there are IQ differences among races but that academic researchers and public figures “shouldn’t go there” because it is a bomb which could blow up policies founded on equality of opportunity (not outcomes).  The discussion was brief, and I didn’t get a sense from it whether he really understands the difference between differences in the mean of a population versus variation within populations and overlap among distributions with different means.  I’ll try to get back to this after I’ve read that section of the book.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  14. Haakon Dahl:

    John Walker (Quoting Murray):
    Just like straight people, gays [would like to demonstrate that they] can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and **eventually produce and raise children like everybody else**.

    Yeah, no.

    Precisely! It has already been demonstrated that children raised in a “gay family” have ALL the troubles that kids raised in a single parent “family”. The latter is sometimes unavoidable, but the stats clearly show these kids have maladjustment issues, trouble with the law, trouble at school, poor sense of purpose, etc. A “gay” family is not the same as a normal heterosexual family – by a long shot.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  15. Devereaux:

    Haakon Dahl:

    John Walker (Quoting Murray):
    Just like straight people, gays [would like to demonstrate that they] can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and **eventually produce and raise children like everybody else**.

    Yeah, no.

    Precisely! It has already been demonstrated that children raised in a “gay family” have ALL the troubles that kids raised in a single parent “family”. The latter is sometimes unavoidable, but the stats clearly show these kids have maladjustment issues, trouble with the law, trouble at school, poor sense of purpose, etc. A “gay” family is not the same as a normal heterosexual family – by a long shot.

    So people who disagree are science deniers, Dev?

    0

  16. 10 Cents:

    Devereaux:

    Haakon Dahl:

    John Walker (Quoting Murray):
    Just like straight people, gays [would like to demonstrate that they] can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and **eventually produce and raise children like everybody else**.

    Yeah, no.

    Precisely! It has already been demonstrated that children raised in a “gay family” have ALL the troubles that kids raised in a single parent “family”. The latter is sometimes unavoidable, but the stats clearly show these kids have maladjustment issues, trouble with the law, trouble at school, poor sense of purpose, etc. A “gay” family is not the same as a normal heterosexual family – by a long shot.

    So people who disagree are science deniers, Dev?

    “The science is settled.”

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  17. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:

    Devereaux:

    Haakon Dahl:

    John Walker (Quoting Murray):
    Just like straight people, gays [would like to demonstrate that they] can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and **eventually produce and raise children like everybody else**.

    Yeah, no.

    Precisely! It has already been demonstrated that children raised in a “gay family” have ALL the troubles that kids raised in a single parent “family”. The latter is sometimes unavoidable, but the stats clearly show these kids have maladjustment issues, trouble with the law, trouble at school, poor sense of purpose, etc. A “gay” family is not the same as a normal heterosexual family – by a long shot.

    So people who disagree are science deniers, Dev?

    “The science is settled.”

    The science is far from settled.   The recent work that showed all those problems with kids raised in gay households was better-quality work than the previous studies, but it still contains methodological flaws.

    It did provide a much needed correction to the awful “studies” from the 1990s and 2000s that claimed no deleterious differences, but there are still open questions.

    Of course, I know you are speaking satirically, as we all know that the field of sociology is dominated by Leftists and that future studies may be expected to tilt ten to one in favor of normalization of gays, because regardless of results, the written “findings” will claim so.   Which is no way to advance, you know, actual science.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply