I thought that term was obsolete, and some harmless-sounding texts is hardly grounds for that anyway. But yes, that’s obviously what he’s going for. The logic in me only sees it as showing the husband had a motive. It just depends on whether the jury are woman-haters or not.
And google doesn’t ‘tell’ you everything. I can’t find on what grounds he’s pleading not guilty. Is he saying he did it but it was a ‘crime of passion’ and his wife’s own fault, or that he did NOT do it? See? Your little mansplaination doesn’t even make sense in the context.
Finally found it. He’s calling it ‘sefl defence’. That didn’t even occur to me which shows how ridiculous it is. He says she ‘started a scuffle’, so he bashed her in the head with a rock in ‘self defence’.
So NOW I see the logic of his ‘case’ presentation. What a POS he is.
Perchance, does he self-identify as a woman and the bashed-face-individual as a man? That may be an avenue the defense took
The straits and gays of Hormuz.
https://x.com/Sassafrass_84/status/2039390972522414211
‘‘The Straits of Hormuz. The Gays of Hormuz. And she agreed without blinking.
This is what happens when your entire political identity is built on agreeing with whatever sounds progressive without ever asking what the words mean.
She doesn’t know where Hormuz is. She doesn’t know what a strait is. But she knows it sounds exclusionary and that’s enough.
How did we get this stupid? We stopped teaching geography and started teaching feelings. And now we have people at protests who can’t find Iran on a map’’.
2 Likes
It’s weird to think some people talk in a way way different manner.
Some people truly do not talk as a means to think, to communicate ideas, but sometimes it is in order to feel part of a group. For that kind of communication, criticism can only come from ‘the other’ group, so it is shunned. Arguments are not way to analyse the situation, just more like throwing darts at another. If it works, it works, it doesn’t matter if it makes sense. Quite like saying ‘How’s the weather’ type of conversation but about mostly everything
Who knows the intent, but it is a way of avoiding taking stands and justifying things. In another thread he claimed that Buddhism has been much more violent than Christianity. When Mr. Authoritarian asked him to support that claim, McC asked how much he would be paid for these lessons. The ‘best’ deflection was the one where his claimed his motivation for not answering your questions was he didn’t want to insult you. I can appreciate him when he is talking to Promethean. That’s a corner of the universe where his ‘style’ suits the context.
Who’s MrC? I hope it’s not supposed to be me. I’ve never said that Buddhism is more violent than christianity. Get you posters right, or quote them.
You’re quite right. My apologies. I conflated two bile ducts.
Love your work at PN VT.
Yeah, one’s sexual fetishes or gender dysphoria disorder is just about the stupidest thing imaginable to try and build an identity around. I mean really, that’s what defines them as a person?
1 Like
I have a more charitable interpretation. I think just about any group that has had a history of intense persecution will build a sense of identity around being in that group. Black americans and Christians come to mind as well.
I don’t blame gay people for how much of an identity it is, I blame the people who persecuted them. Because I imagine an alternate history in which gay people weren’t ruthlessly persecuted, and in that alternate history I don’t imagine it’s any more of an identity than being straight is. I don’t blame gay people for gay pride parades, I blame Christians for that.
past gay-hating christians you mean?
Yes, past and the ones that are plentiful enough in the present as well
You mean the people that are not responsible for that?
I mean what now?
Sexual perversion is generally to a large extent taken as a primal factor of identity, for two reasons.
One, sexuality is an important part of identity. Normal people lapse into joking sexually about the other sex within two or three topics if they are not politically programmed to discuss whatever political program of the day instead. Even if it’s just “women are crazy” or “men are idiots” superficial level. Non-politicized perverts will generally join these conversations happily their own selves.
If somebody gets married, for example, that becomes a primal part of their identity. Of course, normal sexuality leads naturally into profound things like child rearing or starting a house.
But this does not account for the entirety of the identification, we can perhaps all agree.
The second reason is that, like all anesthetic responses to repressed trauma, sexual perversion will take an oversized role in the person’s life. Just like drugs, just like gambling, just like general abusiveness, or accute psychosis, or intense thrill seeking, or an exagerated drive for excellence, a long etc. This outsized role will stand out and be misterious, even to the pervert. Thus they will inevitably have a drive to make an identity around it, to incorporate it, force it into the stream of coherent grasp on reality.
It’s the very same reason drug addicts base an identity around taking drugs, which is a fairly alien moment to the central motifs we generally regard as constituting a personality.
To ascribe political reasons to these things is to play the very game of the people who have made political flags of them.
They are poor souls, diseased psyches, often themselves abusers who chain the cycle together, who have been weaponized.
.
LGBT are not hated.. the weaponising of the LGBT phenomenon, and it’s add-ons, is hated.. it is being used to subjugate and control society at large, as well as many other social constructions being used to control the masses.
People that go out of their way to defend these political categories should themselves not be seen as politically driven.
The political reasoning behind it is fairly obscure and jagged, the stuff of professionals.
The reason they do it is that the id has no identity, no unity of person. It makes no clear distinction between repression of its own trauma and repression as a general fact. Defending it in political homosexuality is defending it in itself.
Indeed, to even make the distinction between general (other people’s) and specific (its own) repression would already be an acknowledgment that its own trauma exists, the avoidance of which is the entire reason for the pathological mechanism to begin with.
.
Such political mechanisms are not used for the petty, but for the mass-transformational, for world takeovers and such.. or why would anyone even go to all that trouble/bother otherwise.. 
.
[you^ are Ich-troll]
I think also that identifying as X doesn’t rule out other identifications, ones which one may consider more central. Also it can makes sense to identify as that which is considered by some or many as negative. It’s a bit like saying, yup this is me, the precise opposite of hiding. So, it can be an anti-shame move. Once again not ruling out other ways one identifies oneself. No need to identify what others assume and don’t care about.
1 Like