Cory1848

That’s a scream: those who criticize so-called “wokism” and language policing are now the biggest language police of all. So sorry to offend your sense of propriety, but if I prefer to use the term “transwoman” in some contexts, it’s my right to do so.

The amount of misinformation in this thread is truly astonishing. In medieval Europe, Jewish people were permitted to be moneylenders largely because Christians at the time still abided by the biblical injunction against charging interest. However, to say that Jews currently “are basically running the US banking system” is ludicrous and an all-too-common antisemitic trope. Some Palestinian Arabs are descended from ancient Hebrews who converted to Islam (either by force or willingly) during the Arab invasions of the 7th century AD; other Palestinian Arabs were immigrants. To try to sort out the bloodlines at this point seems pointless. There were no universities in the Levant in the 7th century, so to say that Palestinian Arabs were simply not “smart enough” to continue being Jewish is another ludicrous statement. It is not surprising that the Israeli military and intelligence services are among the best in the world; Israel was born out of the trauma of the Holocaust, so self-defense would have been among the new state’s top priorities. (And given that Jewish people have been persecuted in Europe for going on two millennia, it’s no wonder that they have emphasized education and thrift, with the next pogrom always just around the corner.) One poster seems to refer to the theory of Khazar origin of the Ashkenazi Jews; this has been debunked. As another person points out, Ashkenazi Jews have origins in ancient Israel. And, more broadly, the entire notion of “IQ” and the ability to measure comparative intelligence through a standardized test is itself coming under increasing criticism by the scientific community; it seems likely that IQ testing will ultimately be regarded as another scientific dead end, along with phrenology and biological racism, medical humorism, etc. In the end, the Jewish people and the governments they create are no more, and no less, responsible for the maintenance of global civic order than any other groups of people who populate the planet.

Thanks for that video -- really interesting! And well conducted by both sides, as you say. I don’t totally agree with Chomsky on everything (he seems to blame the US more than Russia for the Ukraine war), but I certainly agree with his take on “wokism.” And his presence and lucidity at age 94 is truly inspiring; makes me think I may have 30 good years left ...

Sending Sri Lankan refugees to Saint Helena seems a problematic move. However, there are no “inhabitants” of the Chagos Islands (other than US and British military personnel, who rotate in and out); the original inhabitants were forcibly evacuated (mostly to Mauritius and the Seychelles) in the 1960s because the US wanted to build a military base there (Diego Garcia). As someone else commented, returning the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is the right thing to do, and I think the Mauritian government has promised the Chagossians (or their descendants) a right to return, but I’m sure the US will want to keep its base; not sure if that’s been resolved yet ...

What is it with you guys and “wokism,” which has to be the biggest bogeyman of the past decade? Lots of great movies have been made the past ten years, and if you raised the (non)issue of “wokism” with the people who made them, they’d laugh you off as irrelevant and silly. “Dunkirk,” “All Quiet on the Western Front” (remake), and “1917” are three of the greatest war movies ever made; for horror movies, there’s “Hereditary,” “Under the Skin,” and “Vacancy” among many others. Just about anything by Yorgos Lanthimos (“The Lobster,” “The Killing of a Sacred Deer”), or starring Rebecca Hall (“Christine,” “The Gift,” “The Night House”) or Florence Pugh (“Midsommer,” “Don’t Worry Darling”). Lots of great small-budget films (“Emily the Criminal,” “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”). “Get Out” is like a punch in the face, as is the Coen Brothers’ “A Serious Man” but in a different way. Oscar winners “Oppenheimer” and “Parasite” were amazing films. I’m just rattling off the top of my head. Movies are a matter of taste, for sure; I’m not big on blockbuster-type movies for instance. And lots of great movies were made prior to 2000 as well, going back to “The Birth of a Nation,” a racist screed but brilliantly made for its time. Get out of your rabbit hole and look around, and ween yourself off this “wokism” shtick, it’s really boring.

You guys crack me up. You don't have a clue what women want. And on those occasions when you crawl out of your caves, it must be unsettling to discover that your doctor, your airline pilot, the person interviewing you for a job is a woman. Grow up already.

We apparently have very different ideas about what “feminism” means, and I feel that many of your statements are misguided. (That “feminism promotes the idea that children and husbands are obstacles to happiness”? Where on earth do you dredge this garbage up?) You seem to have some notion that ambitious women are a drag on the men they’re with. Maybe you’ve just had some bad personal experiences; I have no idea. You also have some notion that male-female relationships are sacrosanct. You don’t really know, then, what’s most important about an intimate, (hopefully) life-long relationship: namely, that two people are able to provide a surplus of emotional support to each other on a day-to-day basis, regardless of their gender. As it turns out, the vast majority of such relationships are between men and women, and these usually result in children; I don’t think the minority of same-sex relationships pose any threat to the “fabric of society,” much less the survival of our species. And another thing: a child is much better off being raised in a loving household with two parents of the same sex than they would be if they were raised by a married man and woman who fought and thus created a toxic environment. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. This “mother-child relationship” that you harp on about is of much less importance than the overall environment the child is raised in. Maybe it’s a father (or two fathers) who play the most fundamental role in nurturing a child. What’s wrong with that? A child needs love and encouragement, which are not the exclusive domain of mothers. I simply believe that people -- human beings -- should be equally judged, and encouraged to succeed, and given status, based on their own talents and desires. If you find fault with that, and more if you accuse me of “virtue signaling,” then I have nothing more to say to you. You can take your misogyny -- indeed, your misanthropy, as you seem filled with hatred -- elsewhere.

Well, I don’t know. I also live in Thailand (for almost 20 years total) and have had access to all levels of Thai society, from hi-so connections (via the US embassy) to village gatherings in the boondocks, and it seems to me that “feminism” has a strong presence up and down the line. The country has had two female heads of government (that’s two more than the US), and while women may be underrepresented as heads of large companies, they sure run (and own) a lot of smaller companies and in general seem to do 90 percent of the work in the country. I don’t see that local men have any control over what women do at all (excepting the criminally violent). Plus, Thailand is a very tolerant society and is also broadly accepting of trans people in all occupations. I find all of this very positive. I suppose I’m part of your “influx of feminist men” (from the US), but for me that means simply regarding women as no different from men with respect to their abilities and intelligence -- often, they have more intelligence and leadership potential, as they tend to think less with their body parts than men do. I’d like to think that, despite my “feminism,” I’ve had a positive influence on those Thais I’ve interacted with and become close to over the years; I live comfortably enough, but I’ve helped others do so as well. So tell me, what’s wrong with feminism?

For heaven’s sake, stop your sobbing. If you’re so intimidated by empowered women, or whatever your notion of “feminism” might be, go live with the Taliban in Afghanistan, with whom you might feel more kinship. Really, you only have one life to live: why torture yourself in an environment where working women, women wearing pantsuits, are lurking around every corner? Oh, the horror.

This is only one example (of your second alternative above), from several years ago, but I'm sure there's more. The tobacco industry's fake scientists were a good model for this sort of thing. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

I’m not sure what you’re saying, I assume that many American men, and some American women, believe that women are “not sufficiently intellectually nor mentally developed” to handle the job of president. I would revise that statement by saying that *dwindling numbers* of American men believe this, and that they are regarded by mainstream society as troglodytes.

No, not “nuff said.” You quoted me but left out my qualifying statements. Which is typical of your sort of argument. I’m not going to waste time repeating myself. As for Dr. Shiva, thanks but no thanks -- you go right ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Ah, I see where you're going with this. And you can certainly have all the sex you want with other men, but no matter how hard you try, unless you bring at least one woman into the mix (yuck!), you're not going to produce a child.

Oh, c'mon. Even the New York Post, hardly a standard bearer of liberal journalism, debunked that photo. https://nypost.com/2024/09/14/us-news/why-ohio-man-in-viral-photo-was-holding-two-geese/

Wow Dr. Shiva’s got it all figured out. How come nobody’s ever heard of him? From what I (briefly) read about him online, he’s a Class A nutjob; I lost interest pretty quickly. Sure, men and women of power and wealth conspire. When it suits their individual purposes. Other times, they compete, and sometimes they destroy each other, particularly corporations, for whom their own respective shareholder values are paramount (following the neoliberal economic system under which much of the world operates). Alliances are ad hoc and temporary, like when the tobacco companies came together before a Senate panel (in the early 1990s?) and jointly argued that their products weren’t addictive. On that occasion, the senators chose not to “conspire” with them. It’s probably comforting, and personally empowering, to believe that one knows exactly what’s going on behind the curtain, so to speak, with all the little bubbles on the whiteboard listing names of media companies, Hollywood agents, CEOs, university presidents, prime ministers, and the like, and to imagine that they all hobnob with each other and share the same worldview and send their kids to the same schools. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, that’s a complete fantasy.