He's right you know?
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
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 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.