But gays can still contribute to society in other ways - via working and doing stuff child-raisers don't have time or money for, as was basically their traditional place in society. The child-havers just have that third kid to make up for the gay ones.
A detrimental gene would be the ones that cause "autism" and create the real droolers that can't learn at all, and can never do anything more than giggle, grin, and piss their pants, and need their bums wiped by competent humans who could be doing something more productive. And yes, two "slow" people are likely to create one of these, which is why they were sterilized in the past (they're not legally allowed to have sex with mental normals anyway, being on the legal-mental level of children and non-humans.) And by fuck, a dog breeder would be demonized for trying to mate two merles together, it should be just as horrifying to let genetic retards and mutant cripples amongst humans to breed more of themselves, too.
Gay men who choose anonymity over faggot activism should be left alone. it is important to remember that your run-of-the-mill gay person is a good neighbor and a square citizen.
Fags who parade in the streets performing unnatural acts and luring children into their fetishes should be tarred, feathered, and thrown into dumpsters.
Groomer activists are creating the hatred for homosexuals they claim to be organized against.
Everything was live-and-let-live until tranny activists and the freaks who love them started bombarding us with their demonic nonsense. Too many people can't even bring themselves to publicly admit women and men exist as separate sexual entities because they're cowards who fear the repercussions of speaking this obvious truth. Matt Walsh is right.
Their attempt to extort toleration has failed and I hope the backlash will be as harsh as they deserve.
Unfortunately I think the whole “marriage equality” thing was just a stepping stone for a whole generation of “professional activists” to push things further and further…
That didn’t have to be the case, but it’s clearly what has followed…
That's ewhy I was trying to define it down without using The Dreaded R Word. Putting useful but oddball evolutionary variances under "autism" is very disengenuous, I think, and came exactly from the defenders of the brain-dead droolers. I have known for a long time that "science" is extremely biased/apolagetic/double-standarded when it comes to humans ... fucking Gould was a stand-out example of that. (He'd probably be crowing on the one hand about how "puncutated equilibrium" has more or less been proving itself (or at least, that evolution can happen at the sub-species level a lot faster than originally postulated), but on the other still insisting that humans haven't had enough time to produce biological races on the other.)
Anyway, speaking of which, anyone else think that Social Media Challenges are someone setting Darwinian Retard Traps? The newest one is apparently "cooking chicken in Ny-Quil". Who would even think of that? And how does someone not stop and consider how dumb that is - unless they're in a whole crowd of "friends" yelling "do it do it do it"?
On your earlier point, I lived with a (very toxic, self-destructive) girl once who insisted “we’re all on the spectrum”, and wouldn’t budge from this idea, despite one of our other flatmates being like a walking stereotype of “high functioning autism”, lol…
But yeah, as a result of having a really fucked-up life, and probably some symptoms of ADHD (even that is arguable), I have, at times, thought I may be either narcissistic, or autistic, or even both…
Hindsight would suggest that I was just… Immature, lacking in experience, and in a couple of pretty toxic relationships (hence my ex calling me a narcissist, while doing… Some pretty narcissistic things herself), but I lacked the self-confidence/esteem to see that, and began to… “Pathologize” myself. To think “What is wrong with me? How can this be happening to me, again..?”
I can see, as a result, how other people fall into that trap. Particularly young people. Particularly with the rise of internet “self diagnosis” and the whole field of psychology being co-opted…
I honestly think the best… “Solution” is not to seek a label or a diagnosis (though YMMV, of course), but to change your life circumstance, and see whether that produces a change in your mental state/functioning.
It’s what “worked” for me, anyway. Though I still have a long way to go. If I ever get there.
No, but they're not trashing it, either. They're basically on the same level as contributing non-humans (dogs, cats and horses). They contribute socially or economically, not genetically. There's no point in doing anything to them sterilization-wise, because they're not going to breed, anyway. The whole point of eugenics isn't just to make better individuals, but also a better species overall, and that would include its society (and that goes for ANY social species .. and humans are social apes, not asocial bears.)
This is where I think the wokeists are shitty and sneaky - their idea of "diversity" begins and ends with human skin colour.
They're basically on the same level as contributing non-humans (dogs, cats and horses)
Funny considering Alexander the great named cities after his dog, meaning even the dog of a "gay" have contributed more historically, socially and economically than a "straight" making retarded statements on the internet, not to mention he had a biological child, something I'm afraid people like you will die chasing until they realize their tradthot family fantasy is only that, a fantasy.
They contribute socially or economically, not genetically. There's no point in doing anything to them sterilization-wise, because they're not going to breed, anyway.
Every single time there's a moronic incel pretending gays and lesbians cannot reproduce. I guess they truly believe if they repeat the same stupidity over and over again it becomes true? I suppose they turn a blind eye everytime they see a pregnant lesbian, a surrogate mother or sperm banks, if they ever leave the basement that is. I mean, maybe I'm imagining the homosexual parents with genetic children I know of. This shit about pretending homosexual people are somehow unable to have children is really no different than the wokes pretending really hard you can change your sex; biological facts don't care about your feelings, political stances or religions.
I didn't say they CAN'T. Of course they can, biologically. And many did in the past, when they found themselves in "show" marriages. But if left to their own devices to be exclusively homosexual, they're not going to breed. And many didn't (think of the homosexuals who spent their lives single as travelling entertainers in the days before electricity and mass media.)
And boy, do you make a lot of assumptions about who you're talking to. They're all wrong, btw.
But gays can still contribute to society in other ways - via working and doing stuff child-raisers don't have time or money for, as was basically their traditional place in society. The child-havers just have that third kid to make up for the gay ones.
A detrimental gene would be the ones that cause "autism" and create the real droolers that can't learn at all, and can never do anything more than giggle, grin, and piss their pants, and need their bums wiped by competent humans who could be doing something more productive. And yes, two "slow" people are likely to create one of these, which is why they were sterilized in the past (they're not legally allowed to have sex with mental normals anyway, being on the legal-mental level of children and non-humans.) And by fuck, a dog breeder would be demonized for trying to mate two merles together, it should be just as horrifying to let genetic retards and mutant cripples amongst humans to breed more of themselves, too.
Gay men who choose anonymity over faggot activism should be left alone. it is important to remember that your run-of-the-mill gay person is a good neighbor and a square citizen.
Fags who parade in the streets performing unnatural acts and luring children into their fetishes should be tarred, feathered, and thrown into dumpsters.
Groomer activists are creating the hatred for homosexuals they claim to be organized against.
Everything was live-and-let-live until tranny activists and the freaks who love them started bombarding us with their demonic nonsense. Too many people can't even bring themselves to publicly admit women and men exist as separate sexual entities because they're cowards who fear the repercussions of speaking this obvious truth. Matt Walsh is right.
Their attempt to extort toleration has failed and I hope the backlash will be as harsh as they deserve.
Thank you. I would happily give up marriage option in a bundle deal with kicking groomers out of schools.
Unfortunately I think the whole “marriage equality” thing was just a stepping stone for a whole generation of “professional activists” to push things further and further…
That didn’t have to be the case, but it’s clearly what has followed…
I think Down’s Syndrome is probably a better example of this, but yea, I agree…
Autism has become super, super broadly defined, to the point of massively watering down the definition…
Non-verbal/non-functional autism, though? Absolutely, I agree…
But then, there’s a lot of “conditions” that could essentially be bred out of society, if we went down that path…
Somehow I doubt that will happen, though, any time soon.
That's ewhy I was trying to define it down without using The Dreaded R Word. Putting useful but oddball evolutionary variances under "autism" is very disengenuous, I think, and came exactly from the defenders of the brain-dead droolers. I have known for a long time that "science" is extremely biased/apolagetic/double-standarded when it comes to humans ... fucking Gould was a stand-out example of that. (He'd probably be crowing on the one hand about how "puncutated equilibrium" has more or less been proving itself (or at least, that evolution can happen at the sub-species level a lot faster than originally postulated), but on the other still insisting that humans haven't had enough time to produce biological races on the other.)
Anyway, speaking of which, anyone else think that Social Media Challenges are someone setting Darwinian Retard Traps? The newest one is apparently "cooking chicken in Ny-Quil". Who would even think of that? And how does someone not stop and consider how dumb that is - unless they're in a whole crowd of "friends" yelling "do it do it do it"?
Peer pressure is a funny thing, unfortunately…
On your earlier point, I lived with a (very toxic, self-destructive) girl once who insisted “we’re all on the spectrum”, and wouldn’t budge from this idea, despite one of our other flatmates being like a walking stereotype of “high functioning autism”, lol…
But yeah, as a result of having a really fucked-up life, and probably some symptoms of ADHD (even that is arguable), I have, at times, thought I may be either narcissistic, or autistic, or even both…
Hindsight would suggest that I was just… Immature, lacking in experience, and in a couple of pretty toxic relationships (hence my ex calling me a narcissist, while doing… Some pretty narcissistic things herself), but I lacked the self-confidence/esteem to see that, and began to… “Pathologize” myself. To think “What is wrong with me? How can this be happening to me, again..?”
I can see, as a result, how other people fall into that trap. Particularly young people. Particularly with the rise of internet “self diagnosis” and the whole field of psychology being co-opted…
I honestly think the best… “Solution” is not to seek a label or a diagnosis (though YMMV, of course), but to change your life circumstance, and see whether that produces a change in your mental state/functioning.
It’s what “worked” for me, anyway. Though I still have a long way to go. If I ever get there.
No, but they're not trashing it, either. They're basically on the same level as contributing non-humans (dogs, cats and horses). They contribute socially or economically, not genetically. There's no point in doing anything to them sterilization-wise, because they're not going to breed, anyway. The whole point of eugenics isn't just to make better individuals, but also a better species overall, and that would include its society (and that goes for ANY social species .. and humans are social apes, not asocial bears.)
This is where I think the wokeists are shitty and sneaky - their idea of "diversity" begins and ends with human skin colour.
Funny considering Alexander the great named cities after his dog, meaning even the dog of a "gay" have contributed more historically, socially and economically than a "straight" making retarded statements on the internet, not to mention he had a biological child, something I'm afraid people like you will die chasing until they realize their tradthot family fantasy is only that, a fantasy.
Every single time there's a moronic incel pretending gays and lesbians cannot reproduce. I guess they truly believe if they repeat the same stupidity over and over again it becomes true? I suppose they turn a blind eye everytime they see a pregnant lesbian, a surrogate mother or sperm banks, if they ever leave the basement that is. I mean, maybe I'm imagining the homosexual parents with genetic children I know of. This shit about pretending homosexual people are somehow unable to have children is really no different than the wokes pretending really hard you can change your sex; biological facts don't care about your feelings, political stances or religions.
I didn't say they CAN'T. Of course they can, biologically. And many did in the past, when they found themselves in "show" marriages. But if left to their own devices to be exclusively homosexual, they're not going to breed. And many didn't (think of the homosexuals who spent their lives single as travelling entertainers in the days before electricity and mass media.)
And boy, do you make a lot of assumptions about who you're talking to. They're all wrong, btw.