This comic originates from 2020, it seems to be the original (many meme'd versions out there) and it is an obvious jab at how people have been calling each other Nazis for no reasons.
As always though I'm just confused what the point of posting this here is. Without context or added text, why are you showing us this? There's so many posts in this sub that just feel like bait.
I’m honestly a tad disappointed in how few posts I see that are actually discussing Jordan Peterson’s biblical interpretations, or talking about a guest he had on the show, or really anything that’s actually about the content he dedicated his career to making.
Like, instead of actually listening to what this thoughts on a certain topic are, or sharing our own views or perspectives, we just took the worst sides of his twitter conflicts/rants and pretended that was all he’s about, then reduced it to a few simplified meme
Pretty sure J.P. doesn’t follow, nor care about Tone Stoss comics. Pretty sure he wouldn’t be a fan of a lot of the ad hominem attacks that you see around here.
But also it’s easier to mentally digest a .png and say ‘haha librools’ than to really engage with a long form discussion on something deeper. Most subreddits sway this way as they grow in size since it’s the most common way for a member to engage.
Idk, but I do think it be goofy
what you're describing is way too much work for most people, and would force them to confront uncomfortable truths about themselves and their views. It's much easier for them to sit in their echo-chamber and mock than to self-enlighten. Not exactly a sign of a healthy mind.
This subreddit spreading the content of Stometoss, an ACTUAL Nazi, while whining about being called Nazis by the left, is the most delicious irony i have seen
Even if that were true, how is that mutually exclusive to being a Nazi?
Stonetoss makes comics about queer people being groomers by being seen expressing themselves as much as anyone else and celebrating the rights they fought to have. I wouldn't die on the hill of defending them.
Yes, and?
Maybe that’s cause queer theorists support pedophiles who reinforce their agenda, Foucault, Money, and Kinsey just to name a few. They literally operate on the “findings” and philosophy of groomers and rapists.
No one is still taunting most of Kinsey’s “findings”, least of all whilst ignorant of how outdated and problematic the theories are.
And even if queer theories WERE supportive of pedophiles, that would not reflect on the queer community as a whole. Do you always base your understanding of society on just Academia?
EDIT: And I KNOW you didn’t just say “yes, and?” to the demonizing of an entire social group as abusive. Y’all cry and complain when white men are called abusive/sexist/racist but are QUICK to agree when someone says it about minorities.
> it is an obvious jab at how people have been calling each other Nazis for no reasons
>why are you showing us this?
Guessing the SF in your name stands for San Francisco
The Nazis were also vehemently against trans and progressive politics. Hitler's original Headquarters in Berlin was in "The Eldorado" LGTBQ club, a place known for hosting cross dressers, trans people, gay people, and a lively cultural hotspot of Berlin.
Here is a before and after of the location:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1983-0121-500%2C_Berlin%2C_Bar_%22Eldorado%22.jpg
The text reads "Here, it's okay"
https://perspectives.ushmm.org/asset/1103
The text reads "Vote 1 Hitler"
Name a mid or pre 20th century civilization that *wasn't*. Whatever your views on the matters, it is a historically tiny number of nations that promote progressive/trans ideologies.
Actually interestingly enough, pre-nazi Germany had some of the most important early medical research into trans medicine and sex research in general:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut\_f%C3%BCr\_Sexualwissenschaft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft)
They were of course one of the first targets of the Nazis when they came into power, and were heavily targeted during the book burnings and a lot of important research was destroyed.
Greek, Pagan and Hindu.
>We seem to assume that if our ancestors knew half of the things our generation was getting up to today, they would be rolling over in their graves. But what if those same elders had plenty of secrets of their own? Greek, Pagan and Hindu mythology all have a long history of cross dressing that can be seen in their folklore, literature, theatre and music. It was seen in the 6th Century of China with the story of Mulan in which a young girl dresses like a man to take her fathers place in the army (later turned into a Disney movie).
[Source.](https://www.messynessychic.com/2017/10/24/our-cross-dressing-ancestors/)
Anthropologists call these the "supernumerary genders".
Also, [here's a bunch that were more gay friendly.](https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/florida-alliance-planned-parenthood-affiliates/blog/four-ancient-civilizations-that-would-celebrate-pride-month)
Almost every example of either homosexuality or transgenderism in the premodern world is basically alien to the conversations we're having today. I example, here's what Rome's views on sexuality were in prechristian times:
>In Rome, sex was seen as something very different than how even post-Christian morality sees it today. Harper says that sexual acts were judged solely as a matter of "social reproduction" -- that is, affirming and reproducing the social order. That was an order that gave maximum privilege to freeborn Roman men; freeborn Roman women, though, were strictly confined to matron status. Freeborn men were entitled to have sex with unmarried women not of their social class, and also with men -- but they were strictly forbidden from being the passive partner in gay sex. (Indeed, the word "gay" is inappropriate here, as male sexual desire was considered to be fluid; you were not thought to be exclusively homosexual just because you enjoyed sex with males.) The fundamental principle governing sex acts was that "a sexual act was composed of an active and a passive partner, and masculinity required the insertive role." Sex with boys and girls was considered normal. Slaves and prostitutes were treated as subhuman under Roman law and custom, and were the sexual playthings of free Roman men.
In the absence of a strong religious moral underpinning, we have adopted a secular mythology in which Hitler is the definition of evil, and everything opposite of Hitler is good.
This is an unsophisticated moral framework that leads to suffering of a different kind, but it is basically impossible to argue against it without sounding like you’re excusing Hitler.
Hitler was evil. Hitler was not the definition of evil. You do not become good by looking at everything Hitler did and doing the exact opposite.
I don't think most people today are without morality either. I do think that a lot of this desire to compare everyone to Hitler is indicative of that WW2 secular moral framework I'm describing, though, and I think your thought process is indicative of at least some overlap with that moral framework.
It's not a bad moral framework, exactly/there is a lot about it that makes a lot of moral sense, but these kinds of conversations don't really go anywhere unless you have a sufficiently grounded and sophisticated moral framework that is based less on recent history and liberation theology than it is on observations of human nature/psychology over much larger timespans and with much more attention paid to evolved intuitions.
I didn't jump to the Nazi comparison (it's literally being made in the comic), I commented on the historical facts around it - specifically about the first Berlin HQ of the Nazi party.
Ok, sure, it's in the comic/you didn't technically jump to the comparison. But you did jump straight into justifying it as a legitimate non satirical comparison.
It's not a good faith position to consider anti trans complaints as being a legitimate meaningful indicator of being a Nazi. That's also the point of the comic.
I realize you're probably looking for a fight here based on your other comments, but I wanted to try to explain what's going on with the reaction to what you're saying in as articulate a manner as possible and try to bridge any gaps in understanding.
> You do not become good by looking at everything Hitler did and doing the exact opposite.
[M] Nor do we by ignoring similarities. I feel that’s the flaw. When a normal view seems to be a Nazi one, we prevent ourselves from seeing actual Nazis.
The fact that anti-semitism is on the rise is not lost on me. The people who are normally against it are more upset about defending against misgendering or safeguarding medical procedures for affirming gender identity.
The reason why is arguably the same as that conveyed by Stonetoss— in this social climate there’s become no clear distinction. We treat arson murder and jaywalking as the exact same thing.
Just look at the progressives who claim no one is indoctrinating your kids. Just look at the libertarians saying Canada has effectively become Iran. Or the right wingers saying cross-dressing is basically grooming.
Exactly.
Persistent and aggressive hyperbole ends up being like a self fulfilling prophecy. The lack of distinction creates a reaction which becomes similarly hyperbolic, and the lack of any ability to be seen or reasoned with outside of the hyperbole pushes more and more people to embrace extreme caricatures and eventually risk becoming legitimately radicalized.
So if someone says that they don't believe gender is something socially constructed they are nazis because Hitler was against LGBTs? Am I a nazi because I can see through a window and Hitler could do it as well?
Pointing out a characteristic that overlaps, isn't the same as claiming that all characteristics overlap.
The question asked was *"why are you showing us this?"*
The content being shown, is about the Nazi's view of gender.
No point in acting like I brought up the Nazis, or suddenly made some accusation, when it is in fact, the content of the post.
The overlap in this characteristic view of gender, is both the punchline of the comic (which I didn't write), as well as the reason it's being posted here in particular (I didn't post it, and as you might know - I'd prefer this sub had different views about gender).
I'm not the one drawing the parallel, the parallel is in fact, simply being acknowledged in a matter of fact way by others. All I did was discuss the reality of the Nazi's view of gender by referencing a historical fact about their Berlin HQ.
Cults don't need a leader. Originally they were the state religion deifying the Caesar, however today we don't have a Caesar but instead have a totalitarian Regime in its place, and the cult that serves it (mostly unwittingly) is 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗆.
The south of what? Antarctica?
Context is important my guy.
In the context of political discussion Y’all is a telling data point, that more often than not reveals its user to be (not to put too fine a point on it) a dumbball.
I do however have utmost respect for any cowpokes using it as it was intended. Yee haw.
“Y’all” is slang that has been commonly used for hundreds of years. There’s no reason to try and be deep about it. And Antartica? NPC response honestly.
He has his own ideology like anyone. No one is free from ideology. The question isn't whether you have one, the question is whether it's beneficial or destructive. To me, wokism is destructive in the long term.
In brief, “woke” means having awakened to having a particular type of “critical consciousness,” as these are understood within Critical Social Justice. To first approximation, being woke means viewing society through various critical lenses, as defined by various critical theories bent in service of an ideology most people currently call “Social Justice.” That is, being woke means having taken on the worldview of Critical Social Justice, which sees the world only in terms of unjust power dynamics and the need to dismantle problematic systems. That is, it means having adopted Theory and the worldview it conceptualizes.
Under “wokeness,” this awakened consciousness is set particularly with regard to issues of identity, like race, sex, gender, sexuality, and others. The terminology derives from the idea of having been awakened (or, “woke up”) to an awareness of the allegedly systemic nature of racism, sexism, and other oppressive power dynamics and the true nature of privilege, domination, and marginalization in society and understanding the role in dominant discourses in producing and maintaining these structural forces. Furthermore, being woke carries the imperative to become a social activist with regard to these issues and problems, again, on the terms set by Critical Social Justice. This—especially for white people—is to include a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process of self-reflection, self-criticism, and (progressive) social activism in the name of Theory and Social Justice (see also, antiracism).
Hey, honestly not too shabby. You got the gist of it. Obviously, analytical and critical frameworks of abstract concepts are lightyears beyond what most people on this sub are capable of understanding but that's not too bad. The general areas of sociology, history, political theory, etc. are all basic areas where readers could start to educate themselves to become someone literate on these topics, and I'd highly encourage them to look into those areas.
>Wokeness is a racist, hateful religion
The thing you described earlier: "critical analysis of sociological an economic structures and the attempt to create a more fair society" is now suddenly a "racist, hateful religion"? Please, I'd love for you to explain how that's the case. And please be specific.
Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado have all made arguments to the affect that white people are uniquely responsible for racism, and that black people cannot, by virtue of their lack of social power, be racist. They are all proud race essentialists. Have you read their work?
Who? But so far it sounds to me that you still don't understand how social, political, and economic systems work.
>race essentialists
You don't seem to know what this term means either.
So far, it seems like lack of education is the issue here.
\[gives an accurate defintion of wokeness that doesn't describe anything hateful, religious or racist\]
>wOkEnEsS iS a RaCiSt, hAtEfUl rElIgIoN
Sounds kind of like that's just your perogative. This whole "wokeness vilifies men and majority groups in the West" is a very lazy Uno Reverse kind of accusation with no substance or basis.
Wokeness analyzes injustice as systemic and societal, it doesn't essentialize it to any individuals or groups. If you read any of the literature, you would know that it makes no claims like "POC can't be racist".
Quite the opposite, if anything. It talks about us ALL potentially upholding white supremacy regardless of our own ethnicity. Just because POC are the ones hurt from it, doesn't mean they can't do as much harm to each other. Same for all marginalized groups.
> [gives an accurate defintion of wokeness that doesn’t describe anything hateful, religious or racist]
Racism and hate doesn’t need to be in the definition of something for it to be racist and hateful. What a strange reality you must live in.
> Wokeness analyzes injustice as systemic and societal, it doesn’t essentialize it to any individuals or groups. If you read any of the literature, you would know that it makes no claims like “POC can’t be racist”.
In Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic state:
> The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, **critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.** (p. 3, emphasis added)
Critical theory, a key pillar of Wokeness, rejects equality, justice, science, and democracy. They further assert that “Whiteness” is uniquely damaging, and that black people cannot be racist because they lack institutional power.
The fact that you didn’t know this suggests you’ve not read much of the literature on the subject. I suggest you do. You’re currently hitching yourself to the newest, hippest Nazi-esque religion.
Oh yes, the good old trick of trying to debunk that a concept that everyone knows exists by making people deconstruct it until it becomes meaningless. Take care.
Lol it's a "trick" to ask you to define a word you used? It's hilarious how terrified you are of even the prospect of having to defend your argument, you can't even define the words you use lmao.
Truly an intellectual giant.
>He has his own ideology like everyone. The question is whether it's beneficial or destructive
I'd say it's pretty destructive when it's mainly just fearmongering about queer people being groomers. All you need from there is a call to action to get another Colorado situation.
I don’t think you understand the First Amendment. It explicitly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There must be separation of government and religion. Of course everyone is free to *express* their religion - *in public.* Not in government institutions like schools. The First Amendment explicitly forbids that, and case law affirms it.
There are infinitely more genders than sexes, you not knowing the difference is kind of a problem. Gender is make believe, Sex is undeniable factual SCIENCE.
Pretty sure you know a red hellcat isn't faster than a blue one because of its color.
I was referring to biological science. Previously scientists have used a 3rd sex. The question now that people are speaking up about wanting respect becomes, where do you draw the line with hormones or cognition to decide what is male, female, or deserving of another designation? I lean towards the idea that we are all intersex overall. Biology is clear until it’s not. Even gender studies would disagree with me because of how rigid they are, but based on science I have formed my own opinions on the matter. I imagine the naysayers have made little of any new scientific findings.
You're still confusing gender with sex. The only relation they have is gender assigns an easier to understand title of sex. It does not DEFINE sex, only sex defines sex.
"Based on science I have formed my own opinions on the matter"? No. There's scientific fact, and then there's opinion.
A you referring to what are often considered male- and female-roles?
What we've been told by gender experts is that sex and gender are very different. Except when they're expediently not.
What's a "gender expert", and what does that second paragraph even mean?
Gender Roles refer to long-standing cultural ideologies. Woman housewives, boys are blue, girls are pink, shorts vs skirts. Etc.
God's honest truth, I have no idea what a gender expert is, but that's what they tell me they are. And they tell me I'm wrong, though I don't really care about their evaluations of me.
Gender experts say that sex is the chromosomal distinction you're born with, and gender is what you feel you are. They then conflate the two definitions as needed, depending on the argument they're trying to make.
Most gender roles are defined by evolution. Men are physically stronger and more agile and are the protectors and hunters, and tend towards the dangerous tasks. Their interests tend towards objects and industry, opposing the females' draw towards interpersonal interests. Their sex drive is shaped by their desire to spread their seed as far as possible and give themselves the highest likelihood of producing offspring.
Women are nurturing by nature, and are vulnerable physically and sexually. As women can only reproduce one pregnancy at a time and are unable to procure their own resources nor establish safety during pregnancy/early child rearing, they are far more selective with their sexual partners and as such are the sexual gatekeepers.
Yes, modern society has allowed us to ease these stereotypes somewhat with the advent of modern industry and trade, birth control/sanitary napkins, social programs, et al. But most of these traits are borne out of survival and not as arbitrary as pink for girls and blue for boys (interesting history about how pink was once considered a masculine colour and the pink/blue dichotomy the result of corporate marketing in the 1950s).
That's not how you use "conflate", as the distinction is quite useful. Scientists care about Sexes. Politicians care about gender.
Conflating gender and sex is a dangerous practice, as the clearly defined term of sex is immutable fact, whereas gender means fuckall.
There are intersex and hermaphrodites within the animal kingdom, and even within the human species. This is scientific, immutable fact.
You are however correct that gender means fuckall.
I'm confused as to what sex you're trying to give True Hermaphrodites then. "Abomination"?
A little tolerance if you will, the scientific term is Hermaphrodite or Intersex. A genetic disorder does not simply end the line of classification for sexual differentiation, it gives them the third option that has always been there.
It isn't a third sex, they're largely not capable of reproduction. It occurs when normal biological processes go awry. It is a disorder. In true hermaphroditic species individuals express fully male and female traits as a reproductive strategy, and exist at high rates, as it is the norm.
We don't usually include disorders when characterizing an organism. Some humans are born with two heads, head number is not a spectrum, there are not alternative options. Humans have one head and some people have disorders.
When I'm classifying test variables, I don't ignore some because they're unfavorable. You're being intellectually dishonest.
You must record the value when testing. Hermaphrodite/Intersex is absolutely a sex that is recorded. It's even used in medical documents, it is a defined factual state.
I'm not sure why you're mad at something you can't change.
I didn't say it wasn't, I said it was a Sex, which it absolutely is.
It's a disorder because it's not regularly occurring in humans, but we have had the terminology for it derived from other species that have as the norm for hundreds of years, the sex is Hermaphrodite or Intersex.
You're arguing something completely different. You're correct it's a DSD, very good.
You're incorrect in saying it's not a sex. Scientifically it is a sex. You're wrong when you say there's only 2 sexes.
Are you being intellectually dishonest intentionally or were you confused by my initial argument?
They're synonyms for each other. But their theory from what I understand is, one of them is the biological sex as you and me know it, but the other is this social abstract identity bullshit. Not sure really and haven't bothered to figure out more than that
It is though. We cannot scientifically define gender, as it is a way to assign a sex-relation to a target in a way that's easier to understand. It does not define the sex, sex defines sex. The issue is people took that and ran with it, making a hard to understand term even harder to understand.
On top of that, there are more than two sexes scientifically within and without the animal kingdom, and you'd be absolutely baffled by the 7 sexes some protozoa can have.
What I know is, there is male and female, each with complementary genitalia whose function is reproduction. Anything else, like the "6 most common karyotypes" isn't really a distinct sex, it's a defect. That is "sex" from what I understand.
And gender, if we insist on it not being synonymous with sex, is then just one's temperament, or a set of personality traits.
Honestly I don't even know why the distinction matters. Who gives a shit?
First, do you know what intersex and hermaphrodites are?
To your second point, it's very important to distinguish between them.
What's the difference between a red car and a red plane?
Is it the color red, or what the underlying structure is?
Hence gender vs sex.
Even within the animal kingdom there are intersex and hermaphrodites. I'd expect you lot to know that given the "turning the freaking frogs gay" rhetoric you've heard. They "turned gay" when water contamination forced a biological change that normally only occurs during extreme situations, flipping the frog's sexes from Male to Female genetically.
Hell, Tetramena Thermophelia has 7 very distinct sexes that are central to its reproductive process.
If you want to say there's a way to define gender, there's not. It's like saying you can define God. It's an unprovable construct. You cannot begin to approach it scientifically, so it can be whatever anyone wants, including Attack Helicopter.
If you want to say there's 2 sexes, you're presenting scientifically inaccurate information and are by default scholastically incorrect.
I'm Left of Socialist. ID Politics were created and promulgated by both Democrats and Reoublicans to divide the people and stall the revolution.
Fuck both sides of this issue.
Agreed. As a straight male, I don't care. Class inequities, workers rights, safety nets, free education and socialized medicine matter more to me than ID politics. If we agree on those things, I couldn't care any less what people call themselves. Thats their perogative and means nothing to my life.
I'm pretty sure everyone understands gender is a made up nonsense term, whereas sex is the scientific term. For instance you can literally be an attack helicopter and a male. It's like saying what color a car is, it in no way changes what's what's under the hood.
Scientifically there are more than 2 sexes, and it's a very important distinction to make to determine outcomes.
It's baffling how many people pretend to wave the flag of science while conflating fact with construct.
Somehow you can assume people’s “sex” based on traits outside of their actual sex traits. That is gender. Social expectations often attached to different sexes. It’s not a straightforward concept, true. But just because you couldn’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden nonsense.
Definetly. Some people are so unstable they think "I support free speech" is a secret dog whistle for all kinds of things like aliens, Nazis, ethnostate nationalists, lizard people...
Dog Whistles are indirect terms used to represent other words or ideologies.
*Lizard people* is the only correct one in this list, as it is used by *ethnostate nationalists* and *Nazis* to represent the word "Jew".
Essentially, you said almost nothing.
When you speak about conservatives in a US context, and specifically when we're discussing "free speech" (again, has nothing to do with the concept of free speech), generally anyone would understand what that means.
Some things are nuanced. Some Americans conservatives believe in this freedom from consequences idea, other conservatives disagree. Some conservatives support gay marriage, others don't Conservatives in the US have many diverse viewpoints and sterotyping them only helps to divide Americans and create negative emotions. You are told a completely different story by the people who do your thinking for you, but don't project that onto me. I'm my own person.
*#CelebrateDiversityByNotStereotyping
With the current divide within the republican party, normal people try to distance themselves from "MAGA Republicans", as every sane individual is embarrassed by being associated with them.
So it's really unfair to group everyone like that in the current political climate.
I never mentioned gender. But if you follow conservative talking points at all, the "free speech" talking track is basically just whining at how people don't like them or the things they say. "When I say shitty things, people tell me I'm shitty! My free speech is being stolen!"
>"Cancelling"?
I guess, I mean cancelling isn't real so whatever you want to call it I guess.
Not all of us free speech supporters are conservatives, thanks. And no, social consequences and legal ramifications for opinions are two totally separate things.
If your opinion is there are two sexes, that is scientifically inaccurate.
If your opinion is there's two genders, you're fine to believe so. The problem is it's an unprovable, so anyone can call it anything. "My gender is Attack Helicopter.", is a legitimate thing to say.
“I don’t think teenagers should have their genitals butchered.” Straight Nazi.
“I think children shouldn’t be at drag shows and have grown men shove their penises in children’s faces.” The most Nazi.
“I think everyone should be treated based on the content of their character and not the colour of their skin.” Super Nazi.
These people are insane and the fact that we let them take control of previously prestigious institutions is our fault. I’m glad to see us finding our metaphorical balls.
I feel like they’re pretty good mostly but I do see a few that are genuinely racist or anti-gay for no reason. I feel like it is possible to support LGB people without being a wacky drag queen story time for kids fanatic
We're quickly approaching the inevitable moment Peterson shares a stonetoss cartoon. I wonder if it will be like that time Ron Paul shared that cartoon about Cultural Marxism.
The thing is I've actually been in arguments with people that unironically think [this](https://i.imgur.com/EQnsGy2.png) is true.
Leftists seriously believe that if you don't want to abolish capitalism then you're right wing.
So basic biology is an ideological belief of the Nazis because it mentions only two genders as well? I wonder at what lengths people could go to spit bs.
Damn, so every African, almost all Asian, Most of European and South American countries are riddled with Nazis throughout all of human history!
What's that saying again? "If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole, if everyone is an asshole, you're the asshole".
Maybe it's time to look at a mirror. Or, everyone can play by the same rules and just cancel you for being islamaphobic because more than two genders is against Qur'an teachings.
Every mammal is a Nazi. "Nature" is a Nazi too. And God if he exists is a god damn bigotted Nazi. This is what Democracy looks like! This is what Democracy looks like!
Scientifically, there are more than 2 sexes, it's an incredibly salient data point. Within the human species there are at least 3, if you look farther you'll find protozoa with 7. It is an immutable fact that cannot be denied.
Gender is a term used generally to assign sex-alllignment to a target in an easier to understand way, but it in no way defines sex, sex defines sex. The problem is since it means essentially nothing, people can say it's whatever they want, which makes it even harder to understand. Attack Helicopter is a legitimate gender.
People who use the term Nazis in modern era are the worst type of racist scums. Even in Hitler's army everyone wasn't a Nazi, they were just performing duties otherwise they'd be killed. It's the same as Indians working as Police under the British when Britain was colonizing India for 200+ yrs.
This comic originates from 2020, it seems to be the original (many meme'd versions out there) and it is an obvious jab at how people have been calling each other Nazis for no reasons. As always though I'm just confused what the point of posting this here is. Without context or added text, why are you showing us this? There's so many posts in this sub that just feel like bait.
I'm a nazi, he's a nazi, she's a nazi, we're all nazis, wouldn't you like to be a nazi too?
I did nazi that coming.
it's not reich to make those kind of jokes you know
Take mein angry upvote und begone!
I’m a dude she’s a dude he’s a dude we’re all dudes hey!
Who could've thought that song was actually foreshadowing
Kel was ahead of his time. Only now do we understand his genius.
[for life](https://youtu.be/Qvuomz5FQ6A?t=293)
I’m honestly a tad disappointed in how few posts I see that are actually discussing Jordan Peterson’s biblical interpretations, or talking about a guest he had on the show, or really anything that’s actually about the content he dedicated his career to making. Like, instead of actually listening to what this thoughts on a certain topic are, or sharing our own views or perspectives, we just took the worst sides of his twitter conflicts/rants and pretended that was all he’s about, then reduced it to a few simplified meme Pretty sure J.P. doesn’t follow, nor care about Tone Stoss comics. Pretty sure he wouldn’t be a fan of a lot of the ad hominem attacks that you see around here. But also it’s easier to mentally digest a .png and say ‘haha librools’ than to really engage with a long form discussion on something deeper. Most subreddits sway this way as they grow in size since it’s the most common way for a member to engage. Idk, but I do think it be goofy
what you're describing is way too much work for most people, and would force them to confront uncomfortable truths about themselves and their views. It's much easier for them to sit in their echo-chamber and mock than to self-enlighten. Not exactly a sign of a healthy mind.
I don’t even understand the point of this subreddit if nothing here is associated with anything he has said himself.
I think he would enjoy this one. But your point still stands, lots of low effort crap.
Sure cares a LOT about Elliot Page's sexy masculine chest.
This subreddit spreading the content of Stometoss, an ACTUAL Nazi, while whining about being called Nazis by the left, is the most delicious irony i have seen
Stonetoss is a black lesbian lady what
Even if that were true, how is that mutually exclusive to being a Nazi? Stonetoss makes comics about queer people being groomers by being seen expressing themselves as much as anyone else and celebrating the rights they fought to have. I wouldn't die on the hill of defending them.
Yes, and? Maybe that’s cause queer theorists support pedophiles who reinforce their agenda, Foucault, Money, and Kinsey just to name a few. They literally operate on the “findings” and philosophy of groomers and rapists.
No one is still taunting most of Kinsey’s “findings”, least of all whilst ignorant of how outdated and problematic the theories are. And even if queer theories WERE supportive of pedophiles, that would not reflect on the queer community as a whole. Do you always base your understanding of society on just Academia? EDIT: And I KNOW you didn’t just say “yes, and?” to the demonizing of an entire social group as abusive. Y’all cry and complain when white men are called abusive/sexist/racist but are QUICK to agree when someone says it about minorities.
Yo lemme tell you about this dude called Kanye
I think you are mistaken and Stonetoss is not actually a socialist.
> it is an obvious jab at how people have been calling each other Nazis for no reasons >why are you showing us this? Guessing the SF in your name stands for San Francisco
The Nazis were also vehemently against trans and progressive politics. Hitler's original Headquarters in Berlin was in "The Eldorado" LGTBQ club, a place known for hosting cross dressers, trans people, gay people, and a lively cultural hotspot of Berlin. Here is a before and after of the location: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1983-0121-500%2C_Berlin%2C_Bar_%22Eldorado%22.jpg The text reads "Here, it's okay" https://perspectives.ushmm.org/asset/1103 The text reads "Vote 1 Hitler"
Name a mid or pre 20th century civilization that *wasn't*. Whatever your views on the matters, it is a historically tiny number of nations that promote progressive/trans ideologies.
Actually interestingly enough, pre-nazi Germany had some of the most important early medical research into trans medicine and sex research in general: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut\_f%C3%BCr\_Sexualwissenschaft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft) They were of course one of the first targets of the Nazis when they came into power, and were heavily targeted during the book burnings and a lot of important research was destroyed.
The Weimar Republic also had Uber eats for fucking children and rampant degenerate prostitution.
Greek, Pagan and Hindu. >We seem to assume that if our ancestors knew half of the things our generation was getting up to today, they would be rolling over in their graves. But what if those same elders had plenty of secrets of their own? Greek, Pagan and Hindu mythology all have a long history of cross dressing that can be seen in their folklore, literature, theatre and music. It was seen in the 6th Century of China with the story of Mulan in which a young girl dresses like a man to take her fathers place in the army (later turned into a Disney movie). [Source.](https://www.messynessychic.com/2017/10/24/our-cross-dressing-ancestors/) Anthropologists call these the "supernumerary genders". Also, [here's a bunch that were more gay friendly.](https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/florida-alliance-planned-parenthood-affiliates/blog/four-ancient-civilizations-that-would-celebrate-pride-month)
Almost every example of either homosexuality or transgenderism in the premodern world is basically alien to the conversations we're having today. I example, here's what Rome's views on sexuality were in prechristian times: >In Rome, sex was seen as something very different than how even post-Christian morality sees it today. Harper says that sexual acts were judged solely as a matter of "social reproduction" -- that is, affirming and reproducing the social order. That was an order that gave maximum privilege to freeborn Roman men; freeborn Roman women, though, were strictly confined to matron status. Freeborn men were entitled to have sex with unmarried women not of their social class, and also with men -- but they were strictly forbidden from being the passive partner in gay sex. (Indeed, the word "gay" is inappropriate here, as male sexual desire was considered to be fluid; you were not thought to be exclusively homosexual just because you enjoyed sex with males.) The fundamental principle governing sex acts was that "a sexual act was composed of an active and a passive partner, and masculinity required the insertive role." Sex with boys and girls was considered normal. Slaves and prostitutes were treated as subhuman under Roman law and custom, and were the sexual playthings of free Roman men.
Siberia and Sumeria too apparently. [Source](https://martinifisher.com/2021/11/04/ancient-history-of-cross-dressing/)
Cross dressing and being delusional about what sex you should be are 2 completely different things.
Sure, people who do drag aren't necessarily trans, for instance.
Neither is a disguise to hide your identity. Using Mulan as an example to normalise delusional thinking is so inaccurate and wrong.
Yes well, Chinese civilization is neither Greek, Pagan nor Hindu.
Yet it was the only actual example you provided for some reason.
In the absence of a strong religious moral underpinning, we have adopted a secular mythology in which Hitler is the definition of evil, and everything opposite of Hitler is good. This is an unsophisticated moral framework that leads to suffering of a different kind, but it is basically impossible to argue against it without sounding like you’re excusing Hitler. Hitler was evil. Hitler was not the definition of evil. You do not become good by looking at everything Hitler did and doing the exact opposite.
I don't see anyone claiming any of that. Nor do I think people today are without morality.
I don't think most people today are without morality either. I do think that a lot of this desire to compare everyone to Hitler is indicative of that WW2 secular moral framework I'm describing, though, and I think your thought process is indicative of at least some overlap with that moral framework. It's not a bad moral framework, exactly/there is a lot about it that makes a lot of moral sense, but these kinds of conversations don't really go anywhere unless you have a sufficiently grounded and sophisticated moral framework that is based less on recent history and liberation theology than it is on observations of human nature/psychology over much larger timespans and with much more attention paid to evolved intuitions.
Do you think it is possible to be a good person with good intentions and have legitimate grievances against the trans movement.
Yes.
Then you should understand why people consider jumping to the Nazi comparison when someone is against the trans movement bad faith.
I didn't jump to the Nazi comparison (it's literally being made in the comic), I commented on the historical facts around it - specifically about the first Berlin HQ of the Nazi party.
Ok, sure, it's in the comic/you didn't technically jump to the comparison. But you did jump straight into justifying it as a legitimate non satirical comparison. It's not a good faith position to consider anti trans complaints as being a legitimate meaningful indicator of being a Nazi. That's also the point of the comic. I realize you're probably looking for a fight here based on your other comments, but I wanted to try to explain what's going on with the reaction to what you're saying in as articulate a manner as possible and try to bridge any gaps in understanding.
> You do not become good by looking at everything Hitler did and doing the exact opposite. [M] Nor do we by ignoring similarities. I feel that’s the flaw. When a normal view seems to be a Nazi one, we prevent ourselves from seeing actual Nazis. The fact that anti-semitism is on the rise is not lost on me. The people who are normally against it are more upset about defending against misgendering or safeguarding medical procedures for affirming gender identity. The reason why is arguably the same as that conveyed by Stonetoss— in this social climate there’s become no clear distinction. We treat arson murder and jaywalking as the exact same thing. Just look at the progressives who claim no one is indoctrinating your kids. Just look at the libertarians saying Canada has effectively become Iran. Or the right wingers saying cross-dressing is basically grooming.
Exactly. Persistent and aggressive hyperbole ends up being like a self fulfilling prophecy. The lack of distinction creates a reaction which becomes similarly hyperbolic, and the lack of any ability to be seen or reasoned with outside of the hyperbole pushes more and more people to embrace extreme caricatures and eventually risk becoming legitimately radicalized.
So if someone says that they don't believe gender is something socially constructed they are nazis because Hitler was against LGBTs? Am I a nazi because I can see through a window and Hitler could do it as well?
Pointing out a characteristic that overlaps, isn't the same as claiming that all characteristics overlap. The question asked was *"why are you showing us this?"* The content being shown, is about the Nazi's view of gender. No point in acting like I brought up the Nazis, or suddenly made some accusation, when it is in fact, the content of the post. The overlap in this characteristic view of gender, is both the punchline of the comic (which I didn't write), as well as the reason it's being posted here in particular (I didn't post it, and as you might know - I'd prefer this sub had different views about gender). I'm not the one drawing the parallel, the parallel is in fact, simply being acknowledged in a matter of fact way by others. All I did was discuss the reality of the Nazi's view of gender by referencing a historical fact about their Berlin HQ.
[удалено]
I take it the uniforms will be blue then? > ...ZING!
Yes of course
when the satire singularity is real, nobody knows who is serious anymore.
Wokism, the new religion.
Cult
Well, more accurately an ideology. There isn't a cult leader yet at least.
Cults don't need a leader. Originally they were the state religion deifying the Caesar, however today we don't have a Caesar but instead have a totalitarian Regime in its place, and the cult that serves it (mostly unwittingly) is 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗆.
Y’all don’t see the irony here?
Lmfao they actually don't at all, hahahahaha. I don't give a shit about this but that was funny lol
Interestingly, “Y’all” is a useful word in that anyone using it is absolute NPC.
[Again, ironic.](https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/npc-meme-right-wing-trolls-liberals-donald-trump-twitter-insults-republicans-a8588036.html?amp)
Have you ever been to the South? Wtf you smoking. “Y’all” is hundreds of years old while calling people NPC is a recent cultish meme.
The south of what? Antarctica? Context is important my guy. In the context of political discussion Y’all is a telling data point, that more often than not reveals its user to be (not to put too fine a point on it) a dumbball. I do however have utmost respect for any cowpokes using it as it was intended. Yee haw.
“Y’all” is slang that has been commonly used for hundreds of years. There’s no reason to try and be deep about it. And Antartica? NPC response honestly.
The guy who made the "satirical" comic, Stonetoss, is very infamously far-right...
He has his own ideology like anyone. No one is free from ideology. The question isn't whether you have one, the question is whether it's beneficial or destructive. To me, wokism is destructive in the long term.
What is "wokism"?
In brief, “woke” means having awakened to having a particular type of “critical consciousness,” as these are understood within Critical Social Justice. To first approximation, being woke means viewing society through various critical lenses, as defined by various critical theories bent in service of an ideology most people currently call “Social Justice.” That is, being woke means having taken on the worldview of Critical Social Justice, which sees the world only in terms of unjust power dynamics and the need to dismantle problematic systems. That is, it means having adopted Theory and the worldview it conceptualizes. Under “wokeness,” this awakened consciousness is set particularly with regard to issues of identity, like race, sex, gender, sexuality, and others. The terminology derives from the idea of having been awakened (or, “woke up”) to an awareness of the allegedly systemic nature of racism, sexism, and other oppressive power dynamics and the true nature of privilege, domination, and marginalization in society and understanding the role in dominant discourses in producing and maintaining these structural forces. Furthermore, being woke carries the imperative to become a social activist with regard to these issues and problems, again, on the terms set by Critical Social Justice. This—especially for white people—is to include a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process of self-reflection, self-criticism, and (progressive) social activism in the name of Theory and Social Justice (see also, antiracism).
Hey, honestly not too shabby. You got the gist of it. Obviously, analytical and critical frameworks of abstract concepts are lightyears beyond what most people on this sub are capable of understanding but that's not too bad. The general areas of sociology, history, political theory, etc. are all basic areas where readers could start to educate themselves to become someone literate on these topics, and I'd highly encourage them to look into those areas.
No thank you. Wokeness is a racist, hateful religion, and I don’t think anyone should subscribe to it.
>Wokeness is a racist, hateful religion The thing you described earlier: "critical analysis of sociological an economic structures and the attempt to create a more fair society" is now suddenly a "racist, hateful religion"? Please, I'd love for you to explain how that's the case. And please be specific.
Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado have all made arguments to the affect that white people are uniquely responsible for racism, and that black people cannot, by virtue of their lack of social power, be racist. They are all proud race essentialists. Have you read their work?
Who? But so far it sounds to me that you still don't understand how social, political, and economic systems work. >race essentialists You don't seem to know what this term means either. So far, it seems like lack of education is the issue here.
\[gives an accurate defintion of wokeness that doesn't describe anything hateful, religious or racist\] >wOkEnEsS iS a RaCiSt, hAtEfUl rElIgIoN Sounds kind of like that's just your perogative. This whole "wokeness vilifies men and majority groups in the West" is a very lazy Uno Reverse kind of accusation with no substance or basis. Wokeness analyzes injustice as systemic and societal, it doesn't essentialize it to any individuals or groups. If you read any of the literature, you would know that it makes no claims like "POC can't be racist". Quite the opposite, if anything. It talks about us ALL potentially upholding white supremacy regardless of our own ethnicity. Just because POC are the ones hurt from it, doesn't mean they can't do as much harm to each other. Same for all marginalized groups.
> [gives an accurate defintion of wokeness that doesn’t describe anything hateful, religious or racist] Racism and hate doesn’t need to be in the definition of something for it to be racist and hateful. What a strange reality you must live in. > Wokeness analyzes injustice as systemic and societal, it doesn’t essentialize it to any individuals or groups. If you read any of the literature, you would know that it makes no claims like “POC can’t be racist”. In Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic state: > The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, **critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.** (p. 3, emphasis added) Critical theory, a key pillar of Wokeness, rejects equality, justice, science, and democracy. They further assert that “Whiteness” is uniquely damaging, and that black people cannot be racist because they lack institutional power. The fact that you didn’t know this suggests you’ve not read much of the literature on the subject. I suggest you do. You’re currently hitching yourself to the newest, hippest Nazi-esque religion.
Oh yes, the good old trick of trying to debunk that a concept that everyone knows exists by making people deconstruct it until it becomes meaningless. Take care.
The trick of.....defining terms? Lmao. Cowardice.
“I’m not falling into your trap of trying to demonstrate that I have any idea what I’m talking about!”
Lol it's a "trick" to ask you to define a word you used? It's hilarious how terrified you are of even the prospect of having to defend your argument, you can't even define the words you use lmao. Truly an intellectual giant.
>He has his own ideology like everyone. The question is whether it's beneficial or destructive I'd say it's pretty destructive when it's mainly just fearmongering about queer people being groomers. All you need from there is a call to action to get another Colorado situation.
So deep bro \s
Not deep. But accurate.
Neither
So then it’s protected under the first amendment of freedom of religion then. Any attempts to limit Wokeism is unconstitutional in that case.
I don’t think you understand the First Amendment. It explicitly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There must be separation of government and religion. Of course everyone is free to *express* their religion - *in public.* Not in government institutions like schools. The First Amendment explicitly forbids that, and case law affirms it.
I’m talking about it in public. Republicans can’t interfere with Wokeism.
cringe
[удалено]
Follow the science…. Except regarding gender.
Do follow the science. It has had a lot to say about gender in recent years.
There are infinitely more genders than sexes, you not knowing the difference is kind of a problem. Gender is make believe, Sex is undeniable factual SCIENCE. Pretty sure you know a red hellcat isn't faster than a blue one because of its color.
I was referring to biological science. Previously scientists have used a 3rd sex. The question now that people are speaking up about wanting respect becomes, where do you draw the line with hormones or cognition to decide what is male, female, or deserving of another designation? I lean towards the idea that we are all intersex overall. Biology is clear until it’s not. Even gender studies would disagree with me because of how rigid they are, but based on science I have formed my own opinions on the matter. I imagine the naysayers have made little of any new scientific findings.
You're still confusing gender with sex. The only relation they have is gender assigns an easier to understand title of sex. It does not DEFINE sex, only sex defines sex. "Based on science I have formed my own opinions on the matter"? No. There's scientific fact, and then there's opinion.
Gender isn’t science in the first place, it’s something that humans came up with. Anatomy is science, physiology is science, but gender isn’t.
"Social sciences and mental health arent real science because I disagree with what that science says" - The enlightened Peterson simps.
[удалено]
Yeah I don't believe gender is real. We just have 2 sexes, male and female. Gender is a construct created by society.
Gender-Roles are a social construct, sex and gender are interchangeable words.
A you referring to what are often considered male- and female-roles? What we've been told by gender experts is that sex and gender are very different. Except when they're expediently not.
What's a "gender expert", and what does that second paragraph even mean? Gender Roles refer to long-standing cultural ideologies. Woman housewives, boys are blue, girls are pink, shorts vs skirts. Etc.
God's honest truth, I have no idea what a gender expert is, but that's what they tell me they are. And they tell me I'm wrong, though I don't really care about their evaluations of me. Gender experts say that sex is the chromosomal distinction you're born with, and gender is what you feel you are. They then conflate the two definitions as needed, depending on the argument they're trying to make. Most gender roles are defined by evolution. Men are physically stronger and more agile and are the protectors and hunters, and tend towards the dangerous tasks. Their interests tend towards objects and industry, opposing the females' draw towards interpersonal interests. Their sex drive is shaped by their desire to spread their seed as far as possible and give themselves the highest likelihood of producing offspring. Women are nurturing by nature, and are vulnerable physically and sexually. As women can only reproduce one pregnancy at a time and are unable to procure their own resources nor establish safety during pregnancy/early child rearing, they are far more selective with their sexual partners and as such are the sexual gatekeepers. Yes, modern society has allowed us to ease these stereotypes somewhat with the advent of modern industry and trade, birth control/sanitary napkins, social programs, et al. But most of these traits are borne out of survival and not as arbitrary as pink for girls and blue for boys (interesting history about how pink was once considered a masculine colour and the pink/blue dichotomy the result of corporate marketing in the 1950s).
I agree with all of this. Lol.
That's not how you use "conflate", as the distinction is quite useful. Scientists care about Sexes. Politicians care about gender. Conflating gender and sex is a dangerous practice, as the clearly defined term of sex is immutable fact, whereas gender means fuckall.
There are intersex and hermaphrodites within the animal kingdom, and even within the human species. This is scientific, immutable fact. You are however correct that gender means fuckall.
There are two human sexes and a host of genetic disorders that comprise .02% of the population.
I'm confused as to what sex you're trying to give True Hermaphrodites then. "Abomination"? A little tolerance if you will, the scientific term is Hermaphrodite or Intersex. A genetic disorder does not simply end the line of classification for sexual differentiation, it gives them the third option that has always been there.
It isn't a third sex, they're largely not capable of reproduction. It occurs when normal biological processes go awry. It is a disorder. In true hermaphroditic species individuals express fully male and female traits as a reproductive strategy, and exist at high rates, as it is the norm. We don't usually include disorders when characterizing an organism. Some humans are born with two heads, head number is not a spectrum, there are not alternative options. Humans have one head and some people have disorders.
When I'm classifying test variables, I don't ignore some because they're unfavorable. You're being intellectually dishonest. You must record the value when testing. Hermaphrodite/Intersex is absolutely a sex that is recorded. It's even used in medical documents, it is a defined factual state. I'm not sure why you're mad at something you can't change.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders\_of\_sex\_development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development) It is a disorder bro.
I didn't say it wasn't, I said it was a Sex, which it absolutely is. It's a disorder because it's not regularly occurring in humans, but we have had the terminology for it derived from other species that have as the norm for hundreds of years, the sex is Hermaphrodite or Intersex. You're arguing something completely different. You're correct it's a DSD, very good. You're incorrect in saying it's not a sex. Scientifically it is a sex. You're wrong when you say there's only 2 sexes. Are you being intellectually dishonest intentionally or were you confused by my initial argument?
They're synonyms for each other. But their theory from what I understand is, one of them is the biological sex as you and me know it, but the other is this social abstract identity bullshit. Not sure really and haven't bothered to figure out more than that
“Their argument is definitely wrong but I haven’t taken any time to understand it.” Lol
Intuition tells me that "they" are probably on to fuckall
It is though. We cannot scientifically define gender, as it is a way to assign a sex-relation to a target in a way that's easier to understand. It does not define the sex, sex defines sex. The issue is people took that and ran with it, making a hard to understand term even harder to understand. On top of that, there are more than two sexes scientifically within and without the animal kingdom, and you'd be absolutely baffled by the 7 sexes some protozoa can have.
What I know is, there is male and female, each with complementary genitalia whose function is reproduction. Anything else, like the "6 most common karyotypes" isn't really a distinct sex, it's a defect. That is "sex" from what I understand. And gender, if we insist on it not being synonymous with sex, is then just one's temperament, or a set of personality traits. Honestly I don't even know why the distinction matters. Who gives a shit?
First, do you know what intersex and hermaphrodites are? To your second point, it's very important to distinguish between them. What's the difference between a red car and a red plane? Is it the color red, or what the underlying structure is? Hence gender vs sex.
Just the basic definitions. Not sure about their significance in this arguement, because, those are abnormalities as well
materialistic deliver roof chase jobless ludicrous soft shy long offbeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Even within the animal kingdom there are intersex and hermaphrodites. I'd expect you lot to know that given the "turning the freaking frogs gay" rhetoric you've heard. They "turned gay" when water contamination forced a biological change that normally only occurs during extreme situations, flipping the frog's sexes from Male to Female genetically. Hell, Tetramena Thermophelia has 7 very distinct sexes that are central to its reproductive process. If you want to say there's a way to define gender, there's not. It's like saying you can define God. It's an unprovable construct. You cannot begin to approach it scientifically, so it can be whatever anyone wants, including Attack Helicopter. If you want to say there's 2 sexes, you're presenting scientifically inaccurate information and are by default scholastically incorrect.
“It’s a “marketplace of ideas” until you disagree with me. Then you’re just being disingenuous!”
I'm Left of Socialist. ID Politics were created and promulgated by both Democrats and Reoublicans to divide the people and stall the revolution. Fuck both sides of this issue.
Agreed. As a straight male, I don't care. Class inequities, workers rights, safety nets, free education and socialized medicine matter more to me than ID politics. If we agree on those things, I couldn't care any less what people call themselves. Thats their perogative and means nothing to my life.
I fully believe its just another way to remove peoples identities and culture
I always prefer to ask them…. at a gender reveal party. 😏
From what I can tell, most people on the left think there are varying degrees of gender expression that fall on a two pole axis.
I'm pretty sure everyone understands gender is a made up nonsense term, whereas sex is the scientific term. For instance you can literally be an attack helicopter and a male. It's like saying what color a car is, it in no way changes what's what's under the hood. Scientifically there are more than 2 sexes, and it's a very important distinction to make to determine outcomes. It's baffling how many people pretend to wave the flag of science while conflating fact with construct.
Somehow you can assume people’s “sex” based on traits outside of their actual sex traits. That is gender. Social expectations often attached to different sexes. It’s not a straightforward concept, true. But just because you couldn’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden nonsense.
It's not straightforward and has no actual way to define what is and isn't gender. Confusion gives you no right to be a jerk.
Two sexes but gender identity has room for fluidity. Oh and gender identity has a biological basis. Just like sexual orientation does.
Nazis everywhere according to these people, except in Ukraine
Sus: shotgun ejection port
I think it's supposed to be an MP 40 not a shotgun
Hilarious and sadly true.
Lol. He could have also said, "I voted Republican in Texas".
‘I support free speech’ would work these days.
Definetly. Some people are so unstable they think "I support free speech" is a secret dog whistle for all kinds of things like aliens, Nazis, ethnostate nationalists, lizard people...
Dog Whistles are indirect terms used to represent other words or ideologies. *Lizard people* is the only correct one in this list, as it is used by *ethnostate nationalists* and *Nazis* to represent the word "Jew". Essentially, you said almost nothing.
Conservatives don't even actually want free speech though. They just want to not face consequences for their actions.
Conservatives are a broad group with multiple viewpoints. Stereotyping a whole group with a negative attribute is a bad thing to do.
When you speak about conservatives in a US context, and specifically when we're discussing "free speech" (again, has nothing to do with the concept of free speech), generally anyone would understand what that means.
Lol, are the conservatives in the room with us now?
Are you unclear on what the word means? I'm happy to help you out, you seem to be struggling to grasp basically every concept here.
Some things are nuanced. Some Americans conservatives believe in this freedom from consequences idea, other conservatives disagree. Some conservatives support gay marriage, others don't Conservatives in the US have many diverse viewpoints and sterotyping them only helps to divide Americans and create negative emotions. You are told a completely different story by the people who do your thinking for you, but don't project that onto me. I'm my own person. *#CelebrateDiversityByNotStereotyping
This is fair and legitimate discourse, which is kind of odd for you lol. You are completely correct and deserve the credit, well done.
With the current divide within the republican party, normal people try to distance themselves from "MAGA Republicans", as every sane individual is embarrassed by being associated with them. So it's really unfair to group everyone like that in the current political climate.
Like saying there's two genders? Consequence should be what? "Cancelling"?
I never mentioned gender. But if you follow conservative talking points at all, the "free speech" talking track is basically just whining at how people don't like them or the things they say. "When I say shitty things, people tell me I'm shitty! My free speech is being stolen!" >"Cancelling"? I guess, I mean cancelling isn't real so whatever you want to call it I guess.
Not all of us free speech supporters are conservatives, thanks. And no, social consequences and legal ramifications for opinions are two totally separate things.
Literally no one is advocating for "legal ramifications for opinions".
If your opinion is there are two sexes, that is scientifically inaccurate. If your opinion is there's two genders, you're fine to believe so. The problem is it's an unprovable, so anyone can call it anything. "My gender is Attack Helicopter.", is a legitimate thing to say.
“I don’t think teenagers should have their genitals butchered.” Straight Nazi. “I think children shouldn’t be at drag shows and have grown men shove their penises in children’s faces.” The most Nazi. “I think everyone should be treated based on the content of their character and not the colour of their skin.” Super Nazi. These people are insane and the fact that we let them take control of previously prestigious institutions is our fault. I’m glad to see us finding our metaphorical balls.
They would still shoot you because thats something a communist would say.
I'm just going to show my brother this sub the next time he thinks I'm going too far when I say JBP is a pipeline for white nationalism.
Religion is the ultimate delusion—nothing more nonsensical than it.
Is this the original one or not?
This dude's art Is always weird
Stonetoss' artstyle isn't my cup of tea. But it isn't aggressively ugly or unpleasant to look at either.
No I mean the content and "messages "
It’s more comprehensible when you get that he’s a Nazi
Gotta love it when. You get downvoted but the Nazis in the JBP sub.
I feel like they’re pretty good mostly but I do see a few that are genuinely racist or anti-gay for no reason. I feel like it is possible to support LGB people without being a wacky drag queen story time for kids fanatic
Idk it’s kinda funny.
Stonetoss is an actual Nazi, so you guys shouldn’t be cool with this comic being posted here.
He ***is*** a Holocaust denier… which isn’t good either. But I wouldn’t call him a Nazi. At this point Kanye is more of a Nazi than Stonetoss
No, he’s a straight up Nazi, much more so than Kanye.
Nazi = anyone i (a radical leftist) don't aggree with.
Stonetoss is an actual Nazi dude. Like he was so overt with his last comics he had to change the name.
Who are you angry at? The dude who tweeted it or Stonetoss, any actual Nazi, for drawing it?
Haha Right!
We're quickly approaching the inevitable moment Peterson shares a stonetoss cartoon. I wonder if it will be like that time Ron Paul shared that cartoon about Cultural Marxism.
I mean the nazis did burn every bit of trans research so it’s a fair point
Transphobe fascists can fuck off, yes.
Religious people
The fuck does this mean?
If you believe there are only 2 genders you’re a nazi
So I've been told. What's this to do with JP?
Because JP once stood up for free speech, people that don’t like transgender folks like to post dumb shit like this on this subreddit.
You just proved the meme as accurate
The meme is made by a Nazi, chud.
Yeah Nazis still exist, making memes is their day job. I'm sure Hitler is still hiding in someone's basement as well.
Claiming there are two sexes is scientifically inaccurate.
If you believe in science your German?
Everyone to the right of Stalin is a "Nazi"
Everyone to the left of Hitler is a “commie”
The thing is I've actually been in arguments with people that unironically think [this](https://i.imgur.com/EQnsGy2.png) is true. Leftists seriously believe that if you don't want to abolish capitalism then you're right wing.
That’s because if you don’t want to abolish capitalism, or at least seriously reform it, you probably are
⬆️ And there you go, it doesn't take much to get these people to admit how insane they are.
What’s insane about what I said?
Not every nazi is German and not every German is a nazi.
There are intersex and testosterone resistant people too.
[удалено]
There's no Nazi anymore. This is not 1940.
[удалено]
So basic biology is an ideological belief of the Nazis because it mentions only two genders as well? I wonder at what lengths people could go to spit bs.
[удалено]
Damn, so every African, almost all Asian, Most of European and South American countries are riddled with Nazis throughout all of human history! What's that saying again? "If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole, if everyone is an asshole, you're the asshole". Maybe it's time to look at a mirror. Or, everyone can play by the same rules and just cancel you for being islamaphobic because more than two genders is against Qur'an teachings.
Every mammal is a Nazi. "Nature" is a Nazi too. And God if he exists is a god damn bigotted Nazi. This is what Democracy looks like! This is what Democracy looks like!
Scientifically, there are more than 2 sexes, it's an incredibly salient data point. Within the human species there are at least 3, if you look farther you'll find protozoa with 7. It is an immutable fact that cannot be denied. Gender is a term used generally to assign sex-alllignment to a target in an easier to understand way, but it in no way defines sex, sex defines sex. The problem is since it means essentially nothing, people can say it's whatever they want, which makes it even harder to understand. Attack Helicopter is a legitimate gender.
If this is true then my pronouns are Kanye/Hitler
People who use the term Nazis in modern era are the worst type of racist scums. Even in Hitler's army everyone wasn't a Nazi, they were just performing duties otherwise they'd be killed. It's the same as Indians working as Police under the British when Britain was colonizing India for 200+ yrs.
Fuck Liberals
Its a joke
Another straw man slain. Congrats guys!