He's right you know?
(media.communities.win)
Comments (58)
sorted by:
He is right. I honestly never thought that delusions would be treated like some sort of virtue
He's wrong. Modern society is the greatest evil, and "gender identity" is just one of its results.
Modern society has weakened the masses to the point they can no longer resist the parasites.
Based and Tedpilled.
Yep, Ted made some good points. His attempted solution was pretty ham fisted though.
Correct. But troonism is one of the most egregious "2+2=duck" social contagions, one of many products from 🤡🌎, pulling the rug of reality out from under the feet of the masses.
Agreed. It is a symptom of a larger disease
Dang man, I too was willing to die to fight gender ideology. Now you have made the solution much more difficult. Still willing to die, but for what exactly?
You need to start somewhere. Why not here? Their ideas are indefensible.
Because it's a waste of time and energy to focus on the effects when the cause has unlimited supplies. If you don't end the cause, the effects will go on indefinitely.
My two cents: gender theory was created specifically for the 1. normalization of pedophilia, and 2. the destruction of the family unit + the Malthusian desire to “decrease the surplus population”
I think that you're right about both of those points, but there's one more component. It's to make you deny reality itself. If a totalitarian government can convince you that "man" and "woman don't exist, they can convince you of anything.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” -George Orwell
Yep. The point is to break people, because then they can make them do anything.
If you deny what you see, then you'll believe anything anyone tells you.
It all goes back to Queer Theory.
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-queer-theory/
Correct.
I'm fully supportive of the traditional and biological two gender framework.
I'm curious what the ELI5 or 30-second elevator pitch explanations are for why gender ideology ITSELF is such an existential threat to Western civilization.
It seems it's the spin-off narcissism, victimhood and cancel culture, censorship, authoritarianism, intolerance of dissent, coordinated attacks on enemies, encroachment on female spaces, relentless propaganda, child grooming, destruction of the nuclear family, etc that seems to be the greatest threat as opposed to the actual tenets of proposing expansion of the two gender model itself.
Now I understand it's likely impossible to separate ideology or ideas from tactics and IRL actions at this point.
I'd be interested in hearing out Walsh's reasoning for his concern over this existential threat of an ideology separate from all of the insanely destructive leftist IRL BS that has attached itself to it.
How I understand it, gender ideology is a model. It assumes a spectrum of behavior between men and women and your position on this spectrum means if you are a man, woman or non-binary. It does not define what it means to be a man or a woman except some vague behavioral traits about what it means to be a man or a woman. Matt proved this this in his documentary where professors and doctors could not define what a woman is. The model is not consistent, a man will change his personality and in time will not be as "tough" as he was in his 20s - early 30s, according to gender ideology then he can no longer be a man at one point. To make things even crazier, being sick as a man is very un-manly so it means that a bad cold can make you a woman. It does not reflect reality, under this model butch lesbians and feminine gays should actually be trans but they are very happy being who they are. This is why no one on the left can provide a definition.
It hurts children. Children need structure and purpose, not confusion about what they are. How many girls get sucked in to believing they are boys because they do not fit in? This is not leftist manipulation but applied gender ideology. They do not fit in the category of girls hence they are something else.
From 90s to 5 mins ago the used model was one where your behavior did not change what you were. You could be a girl that liked football and not be less of a girl then one that liked dolls. This model offered a lot of freedom.
So why do we need an incredibly bad model over a model that worked much better?
Only reason is leftism. Leftists use and push for it. So you can't in separate the ideology from leftists using it to feed in to narcissism, authoritarianism, victimhood as a virtue, alienating kids from their parents and hurting the nuclear family and even national identity.
Is a bad, inconsistent, illogical model that causes harm to children and adults and the only reason it exists in our life is to be a tool for marxists.
Excellent commentary.
Rough summary
Gender ideology is just another manifestation of a deep cultural sickness consisting of post modernism and nihilism. It doesn't matter which manifestation you latch on to, they all end with the same logical conclusion - destruction of everything that binds society together. Destruction of the family unit, destruction of the social contract, destruction of Enlightenment (Western) values.
https://archive.ph/4xobF
It's unsurprising that there are so many commie fucks trooning out.
Thanks for the link. Came across it a few days back.
Maybe I'll actually read it this time.
The only person I see talking about postmodernism is Jordan Peterson, who to his credit has been talking and warning about this faction from day one.
TBH, I still don't REALLY understand what postmodernism is other than that it is subversive, evil and everywhere.
The social contract was shredded by women decades before this.
The two-gender patriarchy model came about because of nature. Men created and ran Western Society because men were naturally better at being industrious, learned, and inventive rather than caring and nurturing (largely due to testosterone) and that beat out other societies, some more womanly, in the real world.
Western Society is so highly tuned to certain traits that many African men can't fit in even from just being a bit more impulsive/aggressive (destructive levels of violence in all countries) and Asian invention stagnated it seems from too little (they didn't obsess over being the best).
From that perspective where even some men don't have what is required for the most highly productive society, it's certainly madness to think people even farther away in traits could. So this idea that women can be firefighters and such ridiculously unnatural ideas could lead to a stable society, but it won't be Western and will be outcompeted by pretty much any other society.
Maybe at this level of technology a stagnating, caring society is what's needed to get past a great filter, but I'm pretty sure when we meet aliens it'd be better to reverse engineer their technology than give them hugs.
This is an interesting theory.
I suppose Japan being a tech innovator and China being a manufacturing powerhouse are relatively young post WW2 narratives.
China colloquially has been assigned credit for many inventions such as silk, gunpowder and ?spaghetti, but from a colonial standpoint, their pre-WW2 accomplishments are rather unimpressivel
Maybe I should say they didn't have to foolishness to waste their time trying to out-do the best. There's lots of times in history an Asian guy invented something, spent his life making it the best he could, but then people later just copied the master instead of besting him.
A lot of times new things happened because somebody had the audacity or today they'd say toxic personality to believe they were the best and go out and do great things.
Like I'd say Trump is an example of that, not in a technical way but it's the same mindset of I'm the best I'm going to do it even though they say it's impossible. Not always the best trait, but it's the engine of Western civilization.
Don't worry, even if he were to explain it, it would still end with "most of the stuff gender activism accomplished shouldn't be undone, we just need to be nicer about it!"
Because none of these types are ever willing to say something truly controversial about the gender problem, its always the same "women should still vote, work, and be allowed to live unashamed but using magic it works this time!"
It's a concerted effort to make the entire population crazy and that will obviously have all sorts of negative consequences.
Although not much of a war when the enemy is guaranteed to suicide themselves.
[Edit: 😢]
The true believers don't suicide. They are all sex obsessed narcissists who believe they are special "chosen ones".
The ones that commit suicide are your kids who the true believers molest, confuse, mutilate and discard.
Did you watch "Silence of the Lambs"? The tranny serial killer in it is the most accurate portrayal of that kind of mentality.
Do you think "It's MA'AM" guy would hesitate to kill someone if he thought he could get away with it? Or torture someone just to give himself the pleasure of doing it? They are all attention whores who think they are above our "petty morality" and belong in a nuthouse.
The few crossdressers who aren't psychos are properly ashamed of their degeneracy and only do it in private, scared of anyone finding out.
They think they are women, therefore they act like them. Everything you say here describes women too - as such...maybe the reason we have such a revulsion to trannies is that they act like our oppressors without the biological brainwashing activating to tell us it's okay.
That's an interesting thought.
If only he was on a non-douche platform that was run by non-douches, for greater non-douchery, and in a non-douchy manner.
If.
Only.
But what does that mean?
Like are we just gonna kill off the activists, or are we gonna undo the things accomplished in the name of gender ideology? Women going back to barefoot and pregnant, or is this just "all the same shit, but utopia instead of dystopia because I said so!"
Like, its always the same empty, vague buzzword targets. Because god forbid you state real goals and run the risk of not having X demographic support you.
Not even here can we agree on what to do about this issue.
Some are accelerationists, some want to protect women because they're tradcucks, some want to blame the Jews, I want to blame women (because it is them) and others want to just end it and draw a line under it.
Its fine to not agree because I doubt any of us know how to properly fix the issue (blaming and figuring out who fucked it up doesn't solve it).
Its worthless to act like you are a brave solider about to sacrifice everything to fight it when you can't even define it.
I think I have a fairly good idea, it's just whether it's morally right.
Let the trannies win a little longer until women's position in society is under threat, then take down both in one push.
That's not a plan, its just "chaos will sort it out."
Cringe culture warrior.
And yet you still don't have the balls to admit women are the majority of those behind it and their motive.
Is it because you're jumping on the obvious win that comes from opposing trannies after women start to?
It's like how Boris "More Feminine Way" Johnson's cronies jumped on the Tavistock enquiry after women expressed concern that there were too many girls being harmed and not enough castration.
There is something incredible about how huge of a sperg you are man
First they mock you, then they attack you, then you win.
Since I started speaking on the topic of a feminist coup of power, a lot has been revealed that confirms it to some extent.
You will never win. Your ideology is just as unsustainable as theirs is, and you're a fool if you think people are going to fight off one pack of brood parasites just to deliver their children to a second.
My ideology is perfectly sustainable. Economically it is a massive improvement.
Removing people who put their hatred over productivity from positions where their input is detrimental is a good thing.
Considering you are unable to interact with women regularly, let alone breed, your ideology has a short shelf life.
Your ideology is extinction.
What is the place of women in your ideal society? I know we agree women shouldn't have any power over men.
I'm personally for complete domination, going further than the tradcons types that just want "house wifes".
You always struck me as the gender segregation type but I don't want to make assumptions.
He'd have a stronger case for his position if it at least included relegating women to the role of axlotl tanks, but he won't allow for them to be included in society in even that capacity.
Based.
And what's wrong with that? They've shown time an again to be less than flights of fancy anyway.
Look I'm not a big fan of women myself man, I'm not even close to your level obviously, and I'm just not such an absolute psycho about it.
I'm not even actively trying to mock you as much of an almost admiration of your dogged and relentless hatred and insertion of women into every single thing.
I don't hate them, I simply speak honestly about them. They hate us, which they make very clear.
My sister doesn't hate me, or my brother in law, or my nephew. My cousin in law doesn't hate me, nor my cousin, or my cousin's son.
At the risk of sounding like Impy --
Women may like a man, or some specific men, but they really do generally distrust and dislike "men" as a whole.
Whether this is due entirely to nature or to decades of relentless propaganda, well, I don't know. But in my experience it's generally true.