F to Ms are just bearded ladies who want to settle down with a girl and dog and lay low (for the most part).
But M to Fs are psychotic bullies who would kill all of us to maintain their sacred illusion and protect their incredibly fragile sense of self (takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to maintain an obvious absurdity every time you leave the house).
Steer clear of these people, they will destroy you and your family and pretend it was for "Justice".
They are state-sanctioned psychos—warn your friends!
The toxic ingredients causing trouble for those who wish to be the opposite sex are the vast hormone overdoses. Anyone getting those is more likely to have mood instability, among other severe side effects. Most people receiving these hormones need to take other meds simply to manage the side effects.
Other cultures have crazy women archetypes. Medea, Kali, Durga, the Shrew. Etc. We have Mother Mary and Marilyn Monroe. Yet most men have had to deal with CrayCray on numerous occasions.
My son is. He is married to another man pretending to be a woman. I think his spouse truly is more comfortable pretending to be female as he is very short and effeminate. He doesn’t “pass,” but then he doesn’t have the money of a Bruce/Caitlin Jenner either. My son is 6’4” and skinny. Balding. Bigger boobs than me because he “didn’t know what size to ask for” and got D cups. He wears size 15 shoe. He does not look remotely female. Twenty years ago, they would have been two divorced gay men living together with two kids each (both sets live with the mothers). My oldest daughter told me after he announced his status about five years ago that she caught him wearing her clothes when he was 13 (she was 16). Bra included. Autogynephelia, for sure.
right, because to be ladylike one has to actually…be a lady 😅 men parading around dressed in a mockery of women will never know what is means to be ladylike, or a woman, or not unhinged, apparently 😂
Not much was made of the fact that the Highland Park, Illinois parade shooter was wearing women's clothes. When mentioned at all it was spun as a "disguise."
I almost did not get my PhD because of comments I made on Instagram about the LGBT ideology. What I did was critique the ideology and explain that it is self-destructive and harmful to society. To be clear, I did not make a single threat, but rather wished the best for those who practice homosexuality and hoped that they would leave it behind. People are free to disagree with me, but that isn't what happened. I later got a phone call from someone at the university saying that I am going to be investigated for threats of harm against students that were black, homosexual and Jewish. It was all slander. I have never said anything about blacks or Jews, nor have I ever made threats to any homosexual. Luckily, no serious consequences came from this. I passed the investigation but was talked to by a counselor who implied that I had some mental issues because of my views.
I’ve also had the “libertarian” beaten out of me. Seeing “libertarians” like the fake folks at Reason and the LP bow before the CDC I now know libertarianism is a joke.
If we’re going down I’ll go down with a renewed Christian Nationalism movement.
[just removed the "like" I tend to apply to your work even before I've read it]
I think this is the wrong approach, though I understand your feelings. Right now this is a battle between two religious viewpoints: wokeism and Christian sensibilities. The woke-comfortable will go to or send their kids to woke institutions, and outraged Christians will seek out institutions like Hillsdale.
What about people of varied, independent viewpoints, or less-observant or merely cultural members of various faith traditions, who want these elite institutions to get back to good educating and intellectual exploration without fear?
Let Brown or whoever hire our Sarah as they will. They'll need to completely wreck themselves before this can start to reverse. Hiring awful people of their own free will, and seeing how well that works out, is a necessary stage to go through.
Meanwhile put every possible pressure on what used to be our elite public institutions to return to their former strengths. There was considerable outcry about the speaker at NYU Law School's recent commencement. Make such foolish choices come with real consequences. Not with cries to restrict the free speech of the wretched, but a loss of elite applicants. Let the Ivies lose all their glamour so they'll need to build it back again. This is gonna be generations' work.
Perhaps consider, in a future post, a list of still-decent, in practical fields of study, schools that are still worth going to for a variety of reasons, and how they might be kept that way.
This reactive attitude guarantees you will lose in the long-term. The right is a party of losers and will remain so for a very-long time. Centrists are just their to make the process of losing go more smoothly. Mark my words, the prediction I make is all the controversial far-left positions in debate today will be mainstream, moderate opinions in 20 years.
I wonder how far late term abortion/infanticide of survivors will go in 20 years? Fifth or sixth graders probably. But, then again, they’re slowly pushing for pedophilia to be accepted as just another “sexual preference,” so maybe not.
Upon leaving the ivy covered walls, these same grads will be confronted with an eventual requirement to produce. This means making things, inventing things and/or providing service to others the cost of which is less than a buyer is voluntarily willing to pay. Having to meet a payroll focuses the mind. Only the few who don't need to make a living (inherited wealth, etc.) can escape commercial reality and then only for a generation or two. The Kennedys spent Joe's savings in about 60 years. Growing up and assuming genuine responsibility is very hard to avoid.
You read this Substack so must be a smart person. I'm not writing about esoteric mysteries here nor am I using strange complicated intellectual constructions to obscure the simple point. Perhaps I'm incorrect in my viewpoint but it's not so hard to get my meaning.
Fascinating that this person effectively published your unpublished article... ps, you probably know this, but "curteousy" is a typo (it's "courtesy").
If someone tells you that he is Napoleon are you required to agree with him? If you fail to endorse his delusions are you being Napoleonphobic? It it exactly the same situation if a man tells you that he is a woman. No one can change their biological sex. The mentally ill are entitled to freely live their lives with sympathy and care but not forced acceptance of their fantasies.
However, to specifically your line "Should Sarah Celeste Griffith be allowed to own a gun?", the answer is indubitably yes just like any other American
I am hesitant to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, but in this case, I am in favor of denying him that right, as he is an obvious psychotic who has publicly made death threats towards people merely for stating facts that he doesn't like about human biology. I don't think we have to wait for him to make good on his threats before taking action. In a healthy society -- where the DSM had not been politicized to remove transgenderism and gender dysphoria from its list of psychological illnesses -- this insane man would be in a padded cell somewhere. At the very least, society's most powerful institutions should not be coddling and encouraging him in his insanity.
Fair points, and I agree he is a nutjob, but if he doesn't have rights you don't have rights. If you're reading this, "it's ok that this guy is deprived of his constitutional rights because he is obviously a bad hombre" is a horrifically short-sighted strategy.
I get what you're saying, but being unwilling to draw a line in the sand with this bullshit and say "no more!" because, liberal values and tolerance and everyone has rights, is what has gotten us to this point. Maybe this is always where the post-Enlightenment West was always doomed to end up. But I think there is a principled way to do this: he publicly made death threats towards people because they disagree with some tenets of his religion; that should result in losing your rights to keep or bear firearms. If we have to wait until he actually makes good on his threats before taking action, then that is not a sustainable state of affairs. If we imagine you can have absolute rights with zero responsibility, which seems to be a dominant conception of rights in our postmodern culture, then we will place ourselves in an impossible situation where we are hostage to psychopathic actors, and in whatever cultural reality that comes next, we will have fewer rights.
I disagree. I think what got us here was “some people have more rights than others”. For example, based on legislation people who routinely make death threats don’t have the right to keep firearms (typically, although that depends on the state) and usually get investigated for the threats themselves. Now, however, it is perfectly legal to make threats provided you are making them against the proper people and you are on the right team. One team has rights the other does not.
Let’s face it, the last 100 years has not been the story of “people getting more rights”.
You're correct that the rule of law is now effectively dead, and it was Team Blue that killed it. But I see the problem as being Team Red's self-imposed "Rules of Engagement," which Team Blue absolutely does not respect or reciprocate. Conservatives are principled and so extend a tolerance and operational freedom to the Left, which the Left has then used to seize and consolidate power, and once their power grab is complete, the Left then shuts the Right out of power altogether and dissolve these rights and legal norms the Right had been respecting and which the Left had used to get power in the first place. What the Right has failed to realize is, rights and norms have to be reciprocal to work, and if you have an enemy who refuses to respect or reciprocate such norms and rights, that enemy effectively repudiates the entire system; he places himself outside of it entirely and has no justification for appealing to such norms or rights on his own behalf. Hence, why it is consistent with liberal ideals for the State to incarcerate felons. In the case of this psychotic tranny in this post, I think we can leave the whole system of rights and norms intact, since, as you noted, denying access to firearms to those who have made public death threats repeatedly is a recognized limit on the 2nd Amendment (and you can be sure if a member of the Proud Boys made such threats against trannies, he would have the FBI knocking on his door to seize whatever weapons he might have). That said, I think I'm coming around to the DeSantis method of taking the fight to the Left and using their own playbook against them, in recognition of the fact that in every area of society controlled by the Left today, the Constitution is dead letter and your rights are practically nonexistent.
Well, as much as I hate to admit it, the Red Team stuck its dick in the mashed potatoes pretty good and hard with the Patriot Act, with dishonorable mention going to the whole War on Drugs, when it comes to eroding the rule of law. I think a proper diagnosis of the problem is that the Right political class does not care about rule of Law that much more than the Left one.
Now, that said, I think it would be good practice to enforce the legislation as written good and hard on both sides, then both sides can see why it is a good idea to stop that kind of shit from getting passed. The Right, both people and politicals, should be demanding that the rules be enforced evenly. We see that sometimes, for example colleges getting sued for openly discriminating against whites and Asians, but we should push for it more. I like DeSantis doing that.
At the same, we need to be really, really careful in our diagnosis of the problem. It isn't that we have too many rights, or that the government is protecting our rights. It is that we have one side of the political spectrum that is entirely indifferent to individual rights and the rule of law, and another that is partially indifferent. The cure for that is not to make BOTH sides entirely indifferent to individual rights and the rule of law; that's how you get things like the the Spanish Civil War, choosing between fascists and communists and hoping they both manage to lose.
The cure is to demand that the government, politicals and bureaucrats, return to respecting individual rights and the rule of law. If they will not, that's when the "Well, you won't abide by the rule book we agreed upon, so we don't have rules anymore" more drastic cure comes in.
Here’s my answer: Brown University breeds and enables a cannibalistic kind of moral narcissism through its cultural heritage of hedonistic and compete-to-the-death sense of humor. They’ll have their fun no matter the cost: if you ain’t with them, you’re against them; but they often can’t tell if you’re even with them when you are (in certain respects).
Of course, I speak of only those who fasten themselves firmly to the Brown identity; many regret their choice and stay for the few who truly respect the Open Curriculum’s ambitions of embracing learning as independent of social achievement.
Note: I graduated from Brown University, largely mortified by their community’s norms as an earnest liberal.
Good article. I will for sure be vocal should this guy apply for a position at my institution.
A funny fact about the math community: they are extremely racist when hiring tenure-track positions. When I was on the job market (btw, I am Asian), I was told at two different universities (one in PA and the other in CA) that they will not hire any Asian. Instead they want to hire someone that is "more diverse", presumably PoC \setminus ({Asian} \cup {white}) or LGBTQ. In the end I had four on-site interviews, all of which are in conservative states. I wonder why...
Do not mess with the M to Fs...they nuts!
F to Ms are just bearded ladies who want to settle down with a girl and dog and lay low (for the most part).
But M to Fs are psychotic bullies who would kill all of us to maintain their sacred illusion and protect their incredibly fragile sense of self (takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to maintain an obvious absurdity every time you leave the house).
Steer clear of these people, they will destroy you and your family and pretend it was for "Justice".
They are state-sanctioned psychos—warn your friends!
Oh, if you think the women who think they are men are just harmless and wouldn't hurt a fly, I wish you luck.
The toxic ingredients causing trouble for those who wish to be the opposite sex are the vast hormone overdoses. Anyone getting those is more likely to have mood instability, among other severe side effects. Most people receiving these hormones need to take other meds simply to manage the side effects.
I wonder how much of history's harm is a direct result of the naive belief that women aren't dangerous.
Other cultures have crazy women archetypes. Medea, Kali, Durga, the Shrew. Etc. We have Mother Mary and Marilyn Monroe. Yet most men have had to deal with CrayCray on numerous occasions.
Well, that's a generalization.
sure is, but while generalizations aren't fair they often contain important truths. and hey, as academia says: Safety first!
Truth
Nice to see my alma mater continuing to attract the clinically insane. Here’s a sampling of Woke theses a few years ago: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-write-a-thesis-dei
Given the high levels of aggression displayed by this guy, I'm thinking autogynophile.
Yeah, he doesn't seem very ladylike. More like an old-fashioned pervert that you'd warn children to stay the hell away from.
My son is. He is married to another man pretending to be a woman. I think his spouse truly is more comfortable pretending to be female as he is very short and effeminate. He doesn’t “pass,” but then he doesn’t have the money of a Bruce/Caitlin Jenner either. My son is 6’4” and skinny. Balding. Bigger boobs than me because he “didn’t know what size to ask for” and got D cups. He wears size 15 shoe. He does not look remotely female. Twenty years ago, they would have been two divorced gay men living together with two kids each (both sets live with the mothers). My oldest daughter told me after he announced his status about five years ago that she caught him wearing her clothes when he was 13 (she was 16). Bra included. Autogynephelia, for sure.
right, because to be ladylike one has to actually…be a lady 😅 men parading around dressed in a mockery of women will never know what is means to be ladylike, or a woman, or not unhinged, apparently 😂
Yup.
AND sociopath.
Not much was made of the fact that the Highland Park, Illinois parade shooter was wearing women's clothes. When mentioned at all it was spun as a "disguise."
I almost did not get my PhD because of comments I made on Instagram about the LGBT ideology. What I did was critique the ideology and explain that it is self-destructive and harmful to society. To be clear, I did not make a single threat, but rather wished the best for those who practice homosexuality and hoped that they would leave it behind. People are free to disagree with me, but that isn't what happened. I later got a phone call from someone at the university saying that I am going to be investigated for threats of harm against students that were black, homosexual and Jewish. It was all slander. I have never said anything about blacks or Jews, nor have I ever made threats to any homosexual. Luckily, no serious consequences came from this. I passed the investigation but was talked to by a counselor who implied that I had some mental issues because of my views.
Great. Now I'm going to stare in the mirror to see if I have psychotic eyes.
That thing threw me off as well. Does having large blue eyes make someone a psychopath?
I’ve also had the “libertarian” beaten out of me. Seeing “libertarians” like the fake folks at Reason and the LP bow before the CDC I now know libertarianism is a joke.
If we’re going down I’ll go down with a renewed Christian Nationalism movement.
[just removed the "like" I tend to apply to your work even before I've read it]
I think this is the wrong approach, though I understand your feelings. Right now this is a battle between two religious viewpoints: wokeism and Christian sensibilities. The woke-comfortable will go to or send their kids to woke institutions, and outraged Christians will seek out institutions like Hillsdale.
What about people of varied, independent viewpoints, or less-observant or merely cultural members of various faith traditions, who want these elite institutions to get back to good educating and intellectual exploration without fear?
Let Brown or whoever hire our Sarah as they will. They'll need to completely wreck themselves before this can start to reverse. Hiring awful people of their own free will, and seeing how well that works out, is a necessary stage to go through.
Meanwhile put every possible pressure on what used to be our elite public institutions to return to their former strengths. There was considerable outcry about the speaker at NYU Law School's recent commencement. Make such foolish choices come with real consequences. Not with cries to restrict the free speech of the wretched, but a loss of elite applicants. Let the Ivies lose all their glamour so they'll need to build it back again. This is gonna be generations' work.
Perhaps consider, in a future post, a list of still-decent, in practical fields of study, schools that are still worth going to for a variety of reasons, and how they might be kept that way.
This reactive attitude guarantees you will lose in the long-term. The right is a party of losers and will remain so for a very-long time. Centrists are just their to make the process of losing go more smoothly. Mark my words, the prediction I make is all the controversial far-left positions in debate today will be mainstream, moderate opinions in 20 years.
Ha! The left has already lost. It is all over but the moaning.
“Joy cometh in the moanin’ “!!!!
As Quemala said!!!
I wonder how far late term abortion/infanticide of survivors will go in 20 years? Fifth or sixth graders probably. But, then again, they’re slowly pushing for pedophilia to be accepted as just another “sexual preference,” so maybe not.
Upon leaving the ivy covered walls, these same grads will be confronted with an eventual requirement to produce. This means making things, inventing things and/or providing service to others the cost of which is less than a buyer is voluntarily willing to pay. Having to meet a payroll focuses the mind. Only the few who don't need to make a living (inherited wealth, etc.) can escape commercial reality and then only for a generation or two. The Kennedys spent Joe's savings in about 60 years. Growing up and assuming genuine responsibility is very hard to avoid.
You should reread my comment.
You need to read my comment again until you understand it. You've picked out the right quotes and have come to the wrong conclusions.
You read this Substack so must be a smart person. I'm not writing about esoteric mysteries here nor am I using strange complicated intellectual constructions to obscure the simple point. Perhaps I'm incorrect in my viewpoint but it's not so hard to get my meaning.
Fascinating that this person effectively published your unpublished article... ps, you probably know this, but "curteousy" is a typo (it's "courtesy").
This trans nonsense is simply a mental illness or sexual fetish.
A troon. Imagine my surprise. 🙄
If someone tells you that he is Napoleon are you required to agree with him? If you fail to endorse his delusions are you being Napoleonphobic? It it exactly the same situation if a man tells you that he is a woman. No one can change their biological sex. The mentally ill are entitled to freely live their lives with sympathy and care but not forced acceptance of their fantasies.
Great article!
However, to specifically your line "Should Sarah Celeste Griffith be allowed to own a gun?", the answer is indubitably yes just like any other American
I am hesitant to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, but in this case, I am in favor of denying him that right, as he is an obvious psychotic who has publicly made death threats towards people merely for stating facts that he doesn't like about human biology. I don't think we have to wait for him to make good on his threats before taking action. In a healthy society -- where the DSM had not been politicized to remove transgenderism and gender dysphoria from its list of psychological illnesses -- this insane man would be in a padded cell somewhere. At the very least, society's most powerful institutions should not be coddling and encouraging him in his insanity.
Fair points, and I agree he is a nutjob, but if he doesn't have rights you don't have rights. If you're reading this, "it's ok that this guy is deprived of his constitutional rights because he is obviously a bad hombre" is a horrifically short-sighted strategy.
I get what you're saying, but being unwilling to draw a line in the sand with this bullshit and say "no more!" because, liberal values and tolerance and everyone has rights, is what has gotten us to this point. Maybe this is always where the post-Enlightenment West was always doomed to end up. But I think there is a principled way to do this: he publicly made death threats towards people because they disagree with some tenets of his religion; that should result in losing your rights to keep or bear firearms. If we have to wait until he actually makes good on his threats before taking action, then that is not a sustainable state of affairs. If we imagine you can have absolute rights with zero responsibility, which seems to be a dominant conception of rights in our postmodern culture, then we will place ourselves in an impossible situation where we are hostage to psychopathic actors, and in whatever cultural reality that comes next, we will have fewer rights.
I disagree. I think what got us here was “some people have more rights than others”. For example, based on legislation people who routinely make death threats don’t have the right to keep firearms (typically, although that depends on the state) and usually get investigated for the threats themselves. Now, however, it is perfectly legal to make threats provided you are making them against the proper people and you are on the right team. One team has rights the other does not.
Let’s face it, the last 100 years has not been the story of “people getting more rights”.
You're correct that the rule of law is now effectively dead, and it was Team Blue that killed it. But I see the problem as being Team Red's self-imposed "Rules of Engagement," which Team Blue absolutely does not respect or reciprocate. Conservatives are principled and so extend a tolerance and operational freedom to the Left, which the Left has then used to seize and consolidate power, and once their power grab is complete, the Left then shuts the Right out of power altogether and dissolve these rights and legal norms the Right had been respecting and which the Left had used to get power in the first place. What the Right has failed to realize is, rights and norms have to be reciprocal to work, and if you have an enemy who refuses to respect or reciprocate such norms and rights, that enemy effectively repudiates the entire system; he places himself outside of it entirely and has no justification for appealing to such norms or rights on his own behalf. Hence, why it is consistent with liberal ideals for the State to incarcerate felons. In the case of this psychotic tranny in this post, I think we can leave the whole system of rights and norms intact, since, as you noted, denying access to firearms to those who have made public death threats repeatedly is a recognized limit on the 2nd Amendment (and you can be sure if a member of the Proud Boys made such threats against trannies, he would have the FBI knocking on his door to seize whatever weapons he might have). That said, I think I'm coming around to the DeSantis method of taking the fight to the Left and using their own playbook against them, in recognition of the fact that in every area of society controlled by the Left today, the Constitution is dead letter and your rights are practically nonexistent.
Well, as much as I hate to admit it, the Red Team stuck its dick in the mashed potatoes pretty good and hard with the Patriot Act, with dishonorable mention going to the whole War on Drugs, when it comes to eroding the rule of law. I think a proper diagnosis of the problem is that the Right political class does not care about rule of Law that much more than the Left one.
Now, that said, I think it would be good practice to enforce the legislation as written good and hard on both sides, then both sides can see why it is a good idea to stop that kind of shit from getting passed. The Right, both people and politicals, should be demanding that the rules be enforced evenly. We see that sometimes, for example colleges getting sued for openly discriminating against whites and Asians, but we should push for it more. I like DeSantis doing that.
At the same, we need to be really, really careful in our diagnosis of the problem. It isn't that we have too many rights, or that the government is protecting our rights. It is that we have one side of the political spectrum that is entirely indifferent to individual rights and the rule of law, and another that is partially indifferent. The cure for that is not to make BOTH sides entirely indifferent to individual rights and the rule of law; that's how you get things like the the Spanish Civil War, choosing between fascists and communists and hoping they both manage to lose.
The cure is to demand that the government, politicals and bureaucrats, return to respecting individual rights and the rule of law. If they will not, that's when the "Well, you won't abide by the rule book we agreed upon, so we don't have rules anymore" more drastic cure comes in.
Actively making death threats is a reasonable consideration.
“Bad hombre” isn’t the same as “clinically insane.”
I see that his Twitter account no longer exists.
Here’s my answer: Brown University breeds and enables a cannibalistic kind of moral narcissism through its cultural heritage of hedonistic and compete-to-the-death sense of humor. They’ll have their fun no matter the cost: if you ain’t with them, you’re against them; but they often can’t tell if you’re even with them when you are (in certain respects).
Of course, I speak of only those who fasten themselves firmly to the Brown identity; many regret their choice and stay for the few who truly respect the Open Curriculum’s ambitions of embracing learning as independent of social achievement.
Note: I graduated from Brown University, largely mortified by their community’s norms as an earnest liberal.
Good article. I will for sure be vocal should this guy apply for a position at my institution.
A funny fact about the math community: they are extremely racist when hiring tenure-track positions. When I was on the job market (btw, I am Asian), I was told at two different universities (one in PA and the other in CA) that they will not hire any Asian. Instead they want to hire someone that is "more diverse", presumably PoC \setminus ({Asian} \cup {white}) or LGBTQ. In the end I had four on-site interviews, all of which are in conservative states. I wonder why...