Actually, I believe it was "we just want to do in our bedrooms what we want. It doesn't affect you." Then came the demand for legal privileges. And then the right to groom your kids.
Apparently in the late 60s and early 70s, at the height of the not-just-sexual revolution that happened in the west when NAMBLA was openly marching in the streets and countries like Denmark were "accidentally" forgetting to make hardcore CP illegal in their sweeping law reforms which gave rise to companies like Color Climax Corporation just openly making CP and selling it in sex shops, gay lobbyist groups in the USA were outright demanding that all children are taken away from their parents and given to gays for "education".
They calmed down eventually as they realized the Revolution wasn't happening, but they never stopped wanting that, they've just been quietly working on demoralizing society.
That actually came later. It started right out of the gate with pedo rights advocacy. Just read up on early gays rights icons like Harry Hay. Many of them wanted pedo rights, too. Some of them considered the less radical "just want to get married" type of thing that eventually gained transaction with normies to be sellouts, basically "house niggers" but for gays.
My personal theory is that LGBT movements toned themselves down temporarily in response to the AIDS crisis. They needed help from normies to see them through that. Now that it's relatively controlled, and we're all paying for their degeneracy via various private and public health coverage, they're once again emboldened. There are other reasons degeneracy is approaching an apex, but I think this is a factor, too.
They claim it’s important to “know” these things “in case” they get molested. This is of course completely untrue as social science has proven to once again be completely useless since the 1930s
They justify everything they want by citing their 'studies', obviously conducted in a highly biased manner by raving lunatics. As if we do not know about the fraudulent nature of most 'studies'.
There are things you can conduct rigorous scientific studies on, and things you cannot. All the shit people tend to cite when supporting leftist nonsense is usually in the latter category, conducted with artificial rigor to make it look like they did something. Even among most things you can study, 80% of studies are crap. Like nutrition studies, since most of them are based on self reporting, which is usually made up or inaccurate.
You can also typically read any study in the opposite direction to be used against their point. Saying kids usually ‘know’ their gender and sex by the age of 4-5 is used here to mean we have to fight against it. You could also use it to mean that even a child knows if they’re a boy or a girl and alternative genders aren’t a thing.
‘Identifying as’ also isn’t a thing. If you’re a man, or a woman, or like guys or girls or whatever, you just are that thing. Self-identifying is another way of saying ‘I pretend to be’, and I’ve never heard any usage of it that goes against that. They’ll say shit like “colonialism made the gender binary” when all cultures recognize the gender binary and often build it deeply into their language because of how important it is.
I went to college with someone that I think is representative of how people fall into all this. You get someone lost and confused at a vulnerable time in their life, fill their head with nonsense, and then give them religious purpose without the productive parts of religion. I’ve seen plenty of people turned in that way. They’ll usually then claim to be their own special category, and get with someone of the same sex that simply dresses and looks like a member of the opposite sex. Not just in terms of clothing and haircuts, but everything. Chicks that look like actual dudes.
How gay and nonbinary are you if you still ended up being attracted to someone that looks like a dude? Girl I’m thinking of’s wife looks like plenty of her ex BF’s because of how butch she is.
Self-identification is really the crux of this and why this whole thing is a religion. Their interpretation of the Self is that it is an immaterial soul-like entity that is thrown into the universe. The idea that the material world impacts the Self in any way is verboten and anyone who says it does or should is their enemy. Facing any of the constraints of a body at all is seen as an unjust cruelty of nature to be corrected by technology. This is why they use language like "black and brown bodies" as well.
If I had to pick between a caricature of religious zealots that want someone thrown in jail for wearing a skirt that’s too short, or the average Wokey, I’d rather the world be run by crazed religious fundamentalists. At least with them the values they’re trying to hold to have a measure of objective value and productive worth. There is no benefit to anything woke. They’re mostly creating and encouraging derangement and mental illness. The caricature of one is trying to discourage openly gay people and things like that, but the reality of the other is an actual war on white people and straight white men and calling for them to die in public.
The religious stereotype is trying to control language by not having you say God is gay or to overuse curse words. There’s an objective standard there. The Wokey stereotype is trying to police every thought you’ve ever had and making up new rules of language that don’t even work. Christian zealots still tried saying we’re all equal under God, with Wokies saying we’re all inherently unequal and need to be separated and treated according to skin color and that if you’re Christian you’re insane.
I can’t think of anything about what the left is afraid of that isn’t actually better than what they’re doing openly every day. Every conversation with them is like a big con job where you enter into mental gymnastics to appreciate their non existent point. At least with something like Christianity, you see people saying “our people have held for thousands of years that it’s a bad idea to do X and Y, so we don’t want people to do X and Y.”
Christianity seems to work a lot better than what was come up with to replace it. Postmodernism is defined exclusively by being nonsense.
Like nutrition studies, since most of them are based on self reporting, which is usually made up or inaccurate.
To this day, scientist know that self-reported food intake in fantasy, but nutrition studies still almost all are self-reported food intake.
They know it's false, but they keep doing those studies anyway.
You can warn beforehand so-called ''diet-resistant'' fat people that they must report acurately and that their food intake will be mesured independently too. And they only report half of what they eat in their food diary.
I get why they still do it because they want money for a study and you can’t keep people in a lab for months on end or anything. The more you know about most studies the less you’ll trust them all though. The Covid shot studies are the funniest because there’s obviously no long term data on any of them since they’ve only existed for half a second. They’ll still argue they’re safe though based on this and that. Then data mounts that says for plenty of people they’re not, probably even as many people as Covid is fatal for.
There’s also the element of human stupidity that comes into nutrition studies because if you ask the average person what they ate, they usually discount half of it because they either forgot because it was a ‘quick snack’, or because they’re going about their day and thinking about other things and eating mindlessly. They’re also not used to talking about food in the way a nutrition study would require. Ask the average person how they eat and you’ll usually get vague things like ‘I eat organic’ or ‘I eat pretty well I think’, the latter based on them having an obese friend that eats 5 pies a day and them only eating 2.
There is also straight-up denial and lying because it just cannot possibly be a self-inflicted problem. Muh magic genetics.
I was helping a parent fill-out their questionaire for their T2 diabetes treatment.
On the question about weekly sugary drinks concumption, they write 5. I correct them, they drink 24 per week.
They say it's impossible they drink so much.
Well let's see. The soda crate contains 24 sodas. They drink them all every single week. The sodas aren't vanishing in a black hole.
The reply : "well maaaaby 10" and they write 10.
Even after slapping them in the face with reality, they insisted on a number off by a factor 2.5.
You can be sure the next questionnaire without hand-holding, they will wrote down 5. Because they thought about drinking less of it without actually changing anything.
You can't help people in this sort of mindset, but you sure as Hell shouldn't be lectured by "Experts" in Fat Studies about how "bodies all work differently" when confronted with obvious falsehoods.
I run a business related to this and have to deal with things like that too. I always have people take pictures of everything they eat and drink if it comes up for medical documentation and half the people aren’t willing to do it, with the other half having it come back as completely unlike they described. They’re the worst with liquids because they think of them as water, even if it’s 3-4 Starbucks shakes a day. Same with fountain drinks.
I’ve had people show up with a Starbucks cup and fountain drink simultaneously in hand and when we document their sugar intake they say they avoid sugar. Then you do the math and it’s always an almost entirely glucose based diet. A lot of girls live on danishes and lattes and pie and alcohol.
Alcohol’s another hard one. Most people in big cities are alcoholics and think they’re not because they have more-alcoholic friends.
The science has always been a popularity contest occasionally skewed by actual brilliant minds who are ridiculed for their ideas until they are later proven to be correct
I’d rather the world be an endless series of Salem Witch Trials than what the Wokies want. At least then people were burned for being unproductive degenerates. Now they’re trying to burn people almost exclusively for not being unproductive degenerates.
Something that even sodomites cant seem to understand themselves they want to talk to children about. Sorry, but that would be like letting a schizophrenic talk to my 2 year old about the moon landings.
interesting hypothesis I heard: The subverted culture intentionally makes women bitterly resentful of the fact that they are physically inferior to men. So they use that resentment as justification for emotionally and physically harming per-pubescent boys, which is the only time that they have real power of males, including controlling them with sexual power. Basically all women are sadistic pedos and the only way to keep them from acting on it is backhands and burkas.
It's not even factually correct. Men represent the majority of pedophiles. But fundamentally, your issue here was that you specified women, as a group, enjoy sexual manipulation of children. That's a Rule 16 violation all day.
Notice the quiet part out loud, we need to get these children young while they are still vulnerable
Can't miss the opportunity to scramble their brains
How can anyone see this and say with a straight face that this isn't grooming mentality?
"Because it's important to expose the children of others to my sexual perversions."
How did we get to "let me talk with your children about sex"?
Actually, I believe it was "we just want to do in our bedrooms what we want. It doesn't affect you." Then came the demand for legal privileges. And then the right to groom your kids.
Apparently in the late 60s and early 70s, at the height of the not-just-sexual revolution that happened in the west when NAMBLA was openly marching in the streets and countries like Denmark were "accidentally" forgetting to make hardcore CP illegal in their sweeping law reforms which gave rise to companies like Color Climax Corporation just openly making CP and selling it in sex shops, gay lobbyist groups in the USA were outright demanding that all children are taken away from their parents and given to gays for "education".
They calmed down eventually as they realized the Revolution wasn't happening, but they never stopped wanting that, they've just been quietly working on demoralizing society.
How did boomers forget all of this?
Ohhh, right, decades of having their minds rotted by late night talk shows.
That actually came later. It started right out of the gate with pedo rights advocacy. Just read up on early gays rights icons like Harry Hay. Many of them wanted pedo rights, too. Some of them considered the less radical "just want to get married" type of thing that eventually gained transaction with normies to be sellouts, basically "house niggers" but for gays.
My personal theory is that LGBT movements toned themselves down temporarily in response to the AIDS crisis. They needed help from normies to see them through that. Now that it's relatively controlled, and we're all paying for their degeneracy via various private and public health coverage, they're once again emboldened. There are other reasons degeneracy is approaching an apex, but I think this is a factor, too.
I remember having to have my parents sign off permission slips to talk about sex ed in 6th grade. I don't know how the fuck we got here.
These sexual predators are everywhere now.
A perpetual refusal to use violence as a tool.
These people should be locked up
"locked up"
In a box.
A box that happens to be buried six feet underground.
A box that is several measures smaller than them.
people?
Why waste the space?
"Should"?
Isn’t there some study they cite that it’s important to teach kids that young about sex? I’m sure that study has been debunked
They claim it’s important to “know” these things “in case” they get molested. This is of course completely untrue as social science has proven to once again be completely useless since the 1930s
They justify everything they want by citing their 'studies', obviously conducted in a highly biased manner by raving lunatics. As if we do not know about the fraudulent nature of most 'studies'.
There are things you can conduct rigorous scientific studies on, and things you cannot. All the shit people tend to cite when supporting leftist nonsense is usually in the latter category, conducted with artificial rigor to make it look like they did something. Even among most things you can study, 80% of studies are crap. Like nutrition studies, since most of them are based on self reporting, which is usually made up or inaccurate.
You can also typically read any study in the opposite direction to be used against their point. Saying kids usually ‘know’ their gender and sex by the age of 4-5 is used here to mean we have to fight against it. You could also use it to mean that even a child knows if they’re a boy or a girl and alternative genders aren’t a thing.
‘Identifying as’ also isn’t a thing. If you’re a man, or a woman, or like guys or girls or whatever, you just are that thing. Self-identifying is another way of saying ‘I pretend to be’, and I’ve never heard any usage of it that goes against that. They’ll say shit like “colonialism made the gender binary” when all cultures recognize the gender binary and often build it deeply into their language because of how important it is.
I went to college with someone that I think is representative of how people fall into all this. You get someone lost and confused at a vulnerable time in their life, fill their head with nonsense, and then give them religious purpose without the productive parts of religion. I’ve seen plenty of people turned in that way. They’ll usually then claim to be their own special category, and get with someone of the same sex that simply dresses and looks like a member of the opposite sex. Not just in terms of clothing and haircuts, but everything. Chicks that look like actual dudes.
How gay and nonbinary are you if you still ended up being attracted to someone that looks like a dude? Girl I’m thinking of’s wife looks like plenty of her ex BF’s because of how butch she is.
Self-identification is really the crux of this and why this whole thing is a religion. Their interpretation of the Self is that it is an immaterial soul-like entity that is thrown into the universe. The idea that the material world impacts the Self in any way is verboten and anyone who says it does or should is their enemy. Facing any of the constraints of a body at all is seen as an unjust cruelty of nature to be corrected by technology. This is why they use language like "black and brown bodies" as well.
If I had to pick between a caricature of religious zealots that want someone thrown in jail for wearing a skirt that’s too short, or the average Wokey, I’d rather the world be run by crazed religious fundamentalists. At least with them the values they’re trying to hold to have a measure of objective value and productive worth. There is no benefit to anything woke. They’re mostly creating and encouraging derangement and mental illness. The caricature of one is trying to discourage openly gay people and things like that, but the reality of the other is an actual war on white people and straight white men and calling for them to die in public.
The religious stereotype is trying to control language by not having you say God is gay or to overuse curse words. There’s an objective standard there. The Wokey stereotype is trying to police every thought you’ve ever had and making up new rules of language that don’t even work. Christian zealots still tried saying we’re all equal under God, with Wokies saying we’re all inherently unequal and need to be separated and treated according to skin color and that if you’re Christian you’re insane.
I can’t think of anything about what the left is afraid of that isn’t actually better than what they’re doing openly every day. Every conversation with them is like a big con job where you enter into mental gymnastics to appreciate their non existent point. At least with something like Christianity, you see people saying “our people have held for thousands of years that it’s a bad idea to do X and Y, so we don’t want people to do X and Y.”
Christianity seems to work a lot better than what was come up with to replace it. Postmodernism is defined exclusively by being nonsense.
To this day, scientist know that self-reported food intake in fantasy, but nutrition studies still almost all are self-reported food intake.
They know it's false, but they keep doing those studies anyway.
You can warn beforehand so-called ''diet-resistant'' fat people that they must report acurately and that their food intake will be mesured independently too. And they only report half of what they eat in their food diary.
I get why they still do it because they want money for a study and you can’t keep people in a lab for months on end or anything. The more you know about most studies the less you’ll trust them all though. The Covid shot studies are the funniest because there’s obviously no long term data on any of them since they’ve only existed for half a second. They’ll still argue they’re safe though based on this and that. Then data mounts that says for plenty of people they’re not, probably even as many people as Covid is fatal for.
There’s also the element of human stupidity that comes into nutrition studies because if you ask the average person what they ate, they usually discount half of it because they either forgot because it was a ‘quick snack’, or because they’re going about their day and thinking about other things and eating mindlessly. They’re also not used to talking about food in the way a nutrition study would require. Ask the average person how they eat and you’ll usually get vague things like ‘I eat organic’ or ‘I eat pretty well I think’, the latter based on them having an obese friend that eats 5 pies a day and them only eating 2.
There is also straight-up denial and lying because it just cannot possibly be a self-inflicted problem. Muh magic genetics.
I was helping a parent fill-out their questionaire for their T2 diabetes treatment.
On the question about weekly sugary drinks concumption, they write 5. I correct them, they drink 24 per week.
They say it's impossible they drink so much.
Well let's see. The soda crate contains 24 sodas. They drink them all every single week. The sodas aren't vanishing in a black hole.
The reply : "well maaaaby 10" and they write 10.
Even after slapping them in the face with reality, they insisted on a number off by a factor 2.5.
You can be sure the next questionnaire without hand-holding, they will wrote down 5. Because they thought about drinking less of it without actually changing anything.
You can't help people in this sort of mindset, but you sure as Hell shouldn't be lectured by "Experts" in Fat Studies about how "bodies all work differently" when confronted with obvious falsehoods.
I run a business related to this and have to deal with things like that too. I always have people take pictures of everything they eat and drink if it comes up for medical documentation and half the people aren’t willing to do it, with the other half having it come back as completely unlike they described. They’re the worst with liquids because they think of them as water, even if it’s 3-4 Starbucks shakes a day. Same with fountain drinks.
I’ve had people show up with a Starbucks cup and fountain drink simultaneously in hand and when we document their sugar intake they say they avoid sugar. Then you do the math and it’s always an almost entirely glucose based diet. A lot of girls live on danishes and lattes and pie and alcohol.
Alcohol’s another hard one. Most people in big cities are alcoholics and think they’re not because they have more-alcoholic friends.
The science has always been a popularity contest occasionally skewed by actual brilliant minds who are ridiculed for their ideas until they are later proven to be correct
The ancient world burned witches for a reason.
I’d rather the world be an endless series of Salem Witch Trials than what the Wokies want. At least then people were burned for being unproductive degenerates. Now they’re trying to burn people almost exclusively for not being unproductive degenerates.
Wtf is wrong with these people and why do they all look the same and want to bang kids
Because physiognomy is real.
P is for Groomer-Disney-Pedophile...
Something that even sodomites cant seem to understand themselves they want to talk to children about. Sorry, but that would be like letting a schizophrenic talk to my 2 year old about the moon landings.
The only real response is that pedos need to be flayed alive in public. The punishment must fit the crime.
Andy Milonakis got a haircut!
BTW, the bull about the “economy of pediatrics” might be right in certain circles but they have full-on infiltrated by pedophiles.
Here is a story from 2017 warning of the coming tide.
We all know the answer is it being too late to easily indoctrinate the children into believing something that was only recently made up.
interesting hypothesis I heard: The subverted culture intentionally makes women bitterly resentful of the fact that they are physically inferior to men. So they use that resentment as justification for emotionally and physically harming per-pubescent boys, which is the only time that they have real power of males, including controlling them with sexual power. Basically all women are sadistic pedos and the only way to keep them from acting on it is backhands and burkas.
I draw the line at burkas, but some measured backhanding and more modest clothing would go a long way.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
What? They're the majority of teachers, it's factually correct.
It's not even factually correct. Men represent the majority of pedophiles. But fundamentally, your issue here was that you specified women, as a group, enjoy sexual manipulation of children. That's a Rule 16 violation all day.