About the Amazon-kitty litter box method...I see on the NextDoor Network that a few people in my neighborhood have used that method -- and caught it on camera. LOL.
Yep! Interestingly my daughter has a doorbell cam, and they caught the Amazon guy delivering their package to their porch, taking the picture of it, then picking it up and walking back to the truck with it. It takes all kinds. I have to have my things delivered to my son's condo. We have security buildings without doorbells or intercoms. How stupid is that? Just getting it off my chest. I pay big bucks to a place that I cannot even have my package delivered at. Moving is not an option the rents have gone up 100% in the area. But back to the management-- they send a Happy Easter memo yesterday, and what you read under the Happy Easter is all the things you cannot do or put on your balcony. I am not paying to live in a commie state -- or maybe I am and just do not know it yet. Sheese!
And, in NYC, during a trash strike years ago, my cousin told me people were putting their trash in Tiffany's boxes, etc., and putting them in their unlocked cars for people to steal....and it worked!!
The best friends pic reminds me of how my dad would get a few feeder pigs every year to raise, butcher and eat. Once year, he got a Hampshire and named it Greg after a golfing buddy of his, just to get under his buddy's skin a little.
Anyway, Greg (the hog) butchered out nicely, and we'd be eating pork chops, or bacon, and dad would say "damn Greg is tasty!" or something like that...
The blatant manner in which government lies, and in which the media repeats those lies, is in some ways amusing, but it reveals the way in which democracy (small "d") has utterly died in this nation.
When people, voters, still had some measure of power over government, it was necessary for politicians and media to lend credibility to their lies - to attempt to deceive the voting public. But now that the process of obtaining and retaining power is entirely in the hands of the elite, and the voting public is now irrelevant, the lies can be as outrageous as they want.
This is Orwellian times, where we are lied to, know we are lied to, and can do nothing about it.
Welcome Justice Jackson. We've been waiting for someone of your intellectual heights, your educational peaks and your judicial legacies which, as always, prove the rabid right to be nothing more than liars. Not even good liars, at that. We will enjoy watching your expertise shine through the mealy brained wing nuts and the beer drinking rapists currently infesting the bench.
Unfortunately, bumbler Biden and forever affixed an asterisk to the good lady's name by announcing beforehand that all men and all non-black women would be excluded from his search.
So, what we can say about Justice Jackson is, she was the most qualified black woman.
It's amusing when fully-indoctrinated progs like Blueballs come here using the patented leftwing BlatherCrap Method (tm) to belch out stale, unimaginative propaganda.
We agree Judge Jackson is intellectual and well-educated. Please tell us, what are her "judicial legacies" that precede her seating on the Supreme Court?
Silver... were conservatives as apoplectic/snarky/dismissive when President Reagan said he would appoint a woman before naming Sandra Day O'Conner in 1981?
Has she served with an asterisk?
Back then I'm guessing Reagan also knocked out 95% of the qualified people just because he limited his options to the few women qualified to serve.
Now, I have other friends who in practice don't disagree with Biden picking brown, they just wish he had just quietly done it instead of announcing it, as Reagan had done.
BTW... Justice Brown fully backed an originalist view in her hearings and stated that she does not see the Constitution as a "Living Document."
About the best the GOP should expect from any Dem nominee.
@ Dave, "apoplectic"? Please! lol "snarky", yes. when you can't or won't define what a woman is, a certain amount of snark should be expected. "dismissive". hardly or only in the sense that her conformation was a forgone conclusion. Certainly didn't surprise anyone here.
I don't keep a scoreboard of who was outraged and snarky when.
I was replying to the bluebullsh*t.
Dems run the show so they get to elect a leftwinger. That's how it goes. She's intelligent and well-educated, and she has years of experience in federal courts, so she is obviously qualified.
I don't begrudge her or Dems anything, but when a blithering parade of blue team-red team In-Your-Face shows up, I gotta throw rotten eggs at it. This particular one was low IQ, so responding was easy.
This particular form of trolling--gushing over someone you worship as you imagine your enemies' blood boiling with rage--is transparent, unimaginative and ultimately, masturbatory. Simple pleasures for simple minds.
Dave, I do not include you in my previous comment. You are a cut above and I enjoy our exchanges (even when you zing me with a really, really good point ;-)
"only in the sense that her conformation was a forgone conclusion."
I'd rate that as mostly true.
Here's another forgone conclusion- if the Party of Plutocrats take the senate in Nov (which appears likely), Biden won't seat another judge until at least 2025 and that would only happen if Dems retook the upper chamber.
And considering how regressives are openly disenfranchising voters in red state after red state, it's hard to imagine how far they will go with a controlled U.S. Senate-without the fear they have now with a 50-50 seating and a possibility of Joe Manchin joining in to stop the assault.
With over 80 pro-Trump/election deniers and Big Lie sellers running for key state seats (21 running for Sec of State in 18 states and 11 for Attorney General), the assault will only go to new levels. They'll likely just name who they want.
Republicans, when in power, will deny a duly elected president to seat a SCOTUS justice and red states will corrupt the elections (while screaming Dems corrupt elections) to insure republicans remain in power.
The Judicial Branch is still a 5-4 court and it appears it will remain a corporate appeasing, vote rigging supporting, lot of elitists and beer guzzling angry date rapers for years to come.
But if the black woman scares you and makes you want to hide your children, take heart that all's well. Sit back and take another gulp of Tucker Tea.
Warren opined on the "What is a woman" controversy surrounding Judge Brown...
Ppl seem to be falling into two categories on this...
1. It's so simple too answer, Brown's non answer is simply evasive and "telling" of an agenda.
2. It was a gotcha question framed to "force" her into a legal position untenable for the Dems.
Here's how a few conservatives answered that very question...
“I’m going to tell you right now what is a woman... This is an easy answer. We’re a creation of God. We came from Adam’s rib. God created us with his hands. We may be the weaker sex — we are the weaker sex — but we are our partner — we are our husband’s wife.” Rep MTG.
“Science isn’t Burger King; you can’t just ‘have it your way,’ I’m about to define what a woman is for you, X chromosomes, no tallywhacker. It’s so simple.” Rep Cawthorne
“Someone who can give birth to a child, a mother, is a woman. Someone who has a uterus is a woman. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.” Sen Hawley
When asked if a woman who had a hysterectomy was a woman, he demurred saying... “Yeah. Well, I don’t know, would they?”
Apparently, it's not as easy many seem to believe. Perhaps, in a hearing about law, interpreting law and the Constitution, Brown was deliberately evasive in her answers, as all nominees are now, so as to remain open to legal arguments in the future.
I get it when people are driven mad by stuff like this. But really, why should half of America be driven mad by this? After all, when conservative nominees say they have no opinions on Roe, precedent or Griswold, it all seems about the same.
SCOTUS Senate hearings are kabuki, and I don't blame any nominee for the boring, anodyne non-answers.
I don't think the GOP launched that strategic question to go after the judge. They did it for the political mileage, and in that sense, its pretty effective.
The fact that leftwing vandals have dragged our society to point where the definition of 'woman' is now up for grabs and controversial shows that their slow poison is working.
People must be free to dress and act however they want. What people are not free to do is hijack standard dictionary words and biological facts, and demand everyone else play along with their fantasies.
TC... I learned long ago as someone who has to move between cultures that rather than defining ppl according to the lenses I wear, to let ppl define themselves.
As you may or not know, I work within and serve the evangelical community in Mexico. That means I've got to keep lines of communication open with all sorts of people.
Believers, non believers, atheists, God fearers and more.
For me, the larger question regarding the "how do you define woman" question is why does it matter? How does how I define a woman, a Christian or anyone else affect you?
How does my stance on what constitutes a marriage affect the marriage of someone else?
For me, it's a live and let live stance, akin to Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9...
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the Gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
I don't always make it, but I'm always trying. For me, it tends to keep doors slightly more open.
Silver said... "People must be free to dress and act however they want. What people are not free to do is hijack standard dictionary words and biological facts, and demand everyone else play along with their fantasies."
Fair enough... as long as we can agree that those "standard dictionary definitions" many ppl cite have changed a lot over the years.
And thankfully we have the etymological record to keep us honest as we study and learn.
"I’m going to tell you right now what is a woman... This is an easy answer. We’re a creation of God. We came from Adam’s rib. God created us with his hands. We may be the weaker sex — we are the weaker sex — but we are our partner — we are our husband’s wife.” Rep MTG."
If you believe the bible is the literal word of God, that's the correct answer. (spoiler: I don't)
"Science isn’t Burger King; you can’t just ‘have it your way,’ I’m about to define what a woman is for you, X chromosomes, no tallywhacker. It’s so simple.” Rep Cawthorne"
Scientifically, that's the correct answer. Two X chromosomes make a female XY = male. We are not fish, in which some species are born female and turn into males at an older stage.
"Someone who can give birth to a child, a mother, is a woman. Someone who has a uterus is a woman. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.” Sen Hawley"
Again, scientifically, that's a correct answer although there was at least one attempt to gestate a fetus inside a male but the fetus was only kept alive by attaching it to the male after female hormone treatments and anti-rejection drugs and in reality left the fetus in a parasitic relationship with the male. I believe the fetus didn't live to full term.
"When asked if a woman who had a hysterectomy was a woman, he demurred saying... “Yeah. Well, I don’t know, would they?"
Are you still considered a Primate if your thumbs are amputated? Since humans are, by definition, are bipeds, are you still a biped if you lose a leg?
Yes, Brown, was definitely evasive about something that is truly about science and not a matter for law or "Science". (Notice the capital "S" as if we were talking about God and has nothing to do with actual science which is a process and a method and not a God to be worshiped.) Should I speak of apotemnophillia syndrome or other related neurological disorders? So yes, the answer is obvious if you know what you're talking about.
"Woman Does Not Exist" It is also in this seminar that Lacan takes up his controversial formula, first advanced in the seminar of 1970-1, "Woman does not exist" (la femme n'existe pas),[10] which he here rephrases as "there is no such thing as Woman" (il n'y a pas La femme).[11] As is clear in the original French, what Lacan puts into question is not the noun "woman", but the definite article which precedes it. In French the definite article indicates universality, and this is precisely the characteristic that women lack; women "do not lend themselves to generalisation, even to phallocentric generalisation."[12]
Not-All Hence Lacan strikes through the definite article whenever it precedes the term femme in much the same way as he strikes through the A to produce the symbol for the barred Other, for like woman, the Other does not exist. To press home the point, Lacan speaks of woman as "not-all" (pas-toute);[13] unlike masculinity, which is a universal function founded upon the phallic exception (castration), woman is a non-universal which admits of no exception.
"Woman is a Symptom of Man" Lacan goes on in 1975 to state that a "woman is a symptom."[14] More precisely, a woman is a symptom of a man, in the sense that a woman can only ever enter the psychic economy of men as a fantasy object (a), the cause of their desire.
@ Dave: One other thing. By actual numbers true hermaphrodites represent 0.013% of the population. Shouldn't such an insignificant number give us pause to turn society as we know it in to some kind of dystopian hell?
For me, the larger question regarding the "how do you define woman" question is why does it matter? How does how I define a woman, a Christian or anyone else affect you?
We live under a legal system that grants personhood to business corporations but not unborn fetuses. It's becoming a crime to answer the question correctly.
SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.
Kind of like all those fake "Hate Crimes" on different campuses. Seems like the demand far outweighs the supply so the perpetrator ends up being the pretend victim... Then it just 'mysteriously' disappears from the 'news'. I wonder if these were the same FBI agents sent to investigate the 'noose' on the garage door at Talladega.
People need to be free to openly discuss kidnapping and killing government officials without having to look over their shoulder in fear that the FBI will catch the stupid ones.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
About the Amazon-kitty litter box method...I see on the NextDoor Network that a few people in my neighborhood have used that method -- and caught it on camera. LOL.
ReplyDeleteYep! Interestingly my daughter has a doorbell cam, and they caught the Amazon guy delivering their package to their porch, taking the picture of it, then picking it up and walking back to the truck with it. It takes all kinds. I have to have my things delivered to my son's condo. We have security buildings without doorbells or intercoms. How stupid is that? Just getting it off my chest. I pay big bucks to a place that I cannot even have my package delivered at. Moving is not an option the rents have gone up 100% in the area. But back to the management-- they send a Happy Easter memo yesterday, and what you read under the Happy Easter is all the things you cannot do or put on your balcony. I am not paying to live in a commie state -- or maybe I am and just do not know it yet. Sheese!
DeleteAnd, in NYC, during a trash strike years ago, my cousin told me people were putting their trash in Tiffany's boxes, etc., and putting them in their unlocked cars for people to steal....and it worked!!
DeleteHow clever of them Z. I think that is a brilliant idea.
DeleteThe best friends pic reminds me of how my dad would get a few feeder pigs every year to raise, butcher and eat. Once year, he got a Hampshire and named it Greg after a golfing buddy of his, just to get under his buddy's skin a little.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Greg (the hog) butchered out nicely, and we'd be eating pork chops, or bacon, and dad would say "damn Greg is tasty!" or something like that...
Ha, I've always heard it's easier not to name an animal you're going to butcher!! But for pork chops and bacon... maybe!! :-)
Delete@ Z
DeleteSmokey might be a good choice. LOL
The blatant manner in which government lies, and in which the media repeats those lies, is in some ways amusing, but it reveals the way in which democracy (small "d") has utterly died in this nation.
ReplyDeleteWhen people, voters, still had some measure of power over government, it was necessary for politicians and media to lend credibility to their lies - to attempt to deceive the voting public. But now that the process of obtaining and retaining power is entirely in the hands of the elite, and the voting public is now irrelevant, the lies can be as outrageous as they want.
This is Orwellian times, where we are lied to, know we are lied to, and can do nothing about it.
Welcome Justice Jackson. We've been waiting for someone of your intellectual heights, your educational peaks and your judicial legacies which, as always, prove the rabid right to be nothing more than liars. Not even good liars, at that. We will enjoy watching your expertise shine through the mealy brained wing nuts and the beer drinking rapists currently infesting the bench.
ReplyDeleteYeah, pedophile enablers were definitely underrepresented on the court. At last, someone 'you' can relate to.
Delete(Low hanging fruit.)
Unfortunately, bumbler Biden and forever affixed an asterisk to the good lady's name by announcing beforehand that all men and all non-black women would be excluded from his search.
DeleteSo, what we can say about Justice Jackson is, she was the most qualified black woman.
Black women make up 5% of the nation's cohort of lawyers, so Biden knocked out 95% of her competition.
DeleteIt's amusing when fully-indoctrinated progs like Blueballs come here using the patented leftwing BlatherCrap Method (tm) to belch out stale, unimaginative propaganda.
DeleteWe agree Judge Jackson is intellectual and well-educated. Please tell us, what are her "judicial legacies" that precede her seating on the Supreme Court?
Silver... were conservatives as apoplectic/snarky/dismissive when President Reagan said he would appoint a woman before naming Sandra Day O'Conner in 1981?
DeleteHas she served with an asterisk?
Back then I'm guessing Reagan also knocked out 95% of the qualified people just because he limited his options to the few women qualified to serve.
Now, I have other friends who in practice don't disagree with Biden picking brown, they just wish he had just quietly done it instead of announcing it, as Reagan had done.
BTW... Justice Brown fully backed an originalist view in her hearings and stated that she does not see the Constitution as a "Living Document."
About the best the GOP should expect from any Dem nominee.
@ Dave,
Delete"apoplectic"? Please! lol
"snarky", yes. when you can't or won't define what a woman is, a certain amount of snark should be expected.
"dismissive". hardly or only in the sense that her conformation was a forgone conclusion. Certainly didn't surprise anyone here.
Dave,
DeleteI don't keep a scoreboard of who was outraged and snarky when.
I was replying to the bluebullsh*t.
Dems run the show so they get to elect a leftwinger. That's how it goes. She's intelligent and well-educated, and she has years of experience in federal courts, so she is obviously qualified.
I don't begrudge her or Dems anything, but when a blithering parade of blue team-red team In-Your-Face shows up, I gotta throw rotten eggs at it. This particular one was low IQ, so responding was easy.
This particular form of trolling--gushing over someone you worship as you imagine your enemies' blood boiling with rage--is transparent, unimaginative and ultimately, masturbatory. Simple pleasures for simple minds.
Dave, I do not include you in my previous comment. You are a cut above and I enjoy our exchanges (even when you zing me with a really, really good point ;-)
Delete"only in the sense that her conformation was a forgone conclusion."
DeleteI'd rate that as mostly true.
Here's another forgone conclusion- if the Party of Plutocrats take the senate in Nov (which appears likely), Biden won't seat another judge until at least 2025 and that would only happen if Dems retook the upper chamber.
And considering how regressives are openly disenfranchising voters in red state after red state, it's hard to imagine how far they will go with a controlled U.S. Senate-without the fear they have now with a 50-50 seating and a possibility of Joe Manchin joining in to stop the assault.
With over 80 pro-Trump/election deniers and Big Lie sellers running for key state seats (21 running for Sec of State in 18 states and 11 for Attorney General), the assault will only go to new levels. They'll likely just name who they want.
Republicans, when in power, will deny a duly elected president to seat a SCOTUS justice and red states will corrupt the elections (while screaming Dems corrupt elections) to insure republicans remain in power.
The Judicial Branch is still a 5-4 court and it appears it will remain a corporate appeasing, vote rigging supporting, lot of elitists and beer guzzling angry date rapers for years to come.
But if the black woman scares you and makes you want to hide your children, take heart that all's well. Sit back and take another gulp of Tucker Tea.
The funny part is that he doesn't think there are any "plutocrats" in the DNC...
DeleteWarren opined on the "What is a woman" controversy surrounding Judge Brown...
DeletePpl seem to be falling into two categories on this...
1. It's so simple too answer, Brown's non answer is simply evasive and "telling" of an agenda.
2. It was a gotcha question framed to "force" her into a legal position untenable for the Dems.
Here's how a few conservatives answered that very question...
“I’m going to tell you right now what is a woman... This is an easy answer. We’re a creation of God. We came from Adam’s rib. God created us with his hands. We may be the weaker sex — we are the weaker sex — but we are our partner — we are our husband’s wife.” Rep MTG.
“Science isn’t Burger King; you can’t just ‘have it your way,’ I’m about to define what a woman is for you, X chromosomes, no tallywhacker. It’s so simple.” Rep Cawthorne
“Someone who can give birth to a child, a mother, is a woman. Someone who has a uterus is a woman. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.” Sen Hawley
When asked if a woman who had a hysterectomy was a woman, he demurred saying... “Yeah. Well, I don’t know, would they?”
Apparently, it's not as easy many seem to believe. Perhaps, in a hearing about law, interpreting law and the Constitution, Brown was deliberately evasive in her answers, as all nominees are now, so as to remain open to legal arguments in the future.
I get it when people are driven mad by stuff like this. But really, why should half of America be driven mad by this? After all, when conservative nominees say they have no opinions on Roe, precedent or Griswold, it all seems about the same.
SCOTUS Senate hearings are kabuki, and I don't blame any nominee for the boring, anodyne non-answers.
DeleteI don't think the GOP launched that strategic question to go after the judge. They did it for the political mileage, and in that sense, its pretty effective.
The fact that leftwing vandals have dragged our society to point where the definition of 'woman' is now up for grabs and controversial shows that their slow poison is working.
People must be free to dress and act however they want. What people are not free to do is hijack standard dictionary words and biological facts, and demand everyone else play along with their fantasies.
Dave,
DeleteHow do you define "woman?"
TC... I learned long ago as someone who has to move between cultures that rather than defining ppl according to the lenses I wear, to let ppl define themselves.
DeleteAs you may or not know, I work within and serve the evangelical community in Mexico. That means I've got to keep lines of communication open with all sorts of people.
Believers, non believers, atheists, God fearers and more.
For me, the larger question regarding the "how do you define woman" question is why does it matter? How does how I define a woman, a Christian or anyone else affect you?
How does my stance on what constitutes a marriage affect the marriage of someone else?
For me, it's a live and let live stance, akin to Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9...
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the Gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
I don't always make it, but I'm always trying. For me, it tends to keep doors slightly more open.
Silver said... "People must be free to dress and act however they want. What people are not free to do is hijack standard dictionary words and biological facts, and demand everyone else play along with their fantasies."
DeleteFair enough... as long as we can agree that those "standard dictionary definitions" many ppl cite have changed a lot over the years.
And thankfully we have the etymological record to keep us honest as we study and learn.
@ Dave:
Delete"I’m going to tell you right now what is a woman... This is an easy answer. We’re a creation of God. We came from Adam’s rib. God created us with his hands. We may be the weaker sex — we are the weaker sex — but we are our partner — we are our husband’s wife.” Rep MTG."
If you believe the bible is the literal word of God, that's the correct answer. (spoiler: I don't)
"Science isn’t Burger King; you can’t just ‘have it your way,’ I’m about to define what a woman is for you, X chromosomes, no tallywhacker. It’s so simple.” Rep Cawthorne"
Scientifically, that's the correct answer. Two X chromosomes make a female XY = male. We are not fish, in which some species are born female and turn into males at an older stage.
"Someone who can give birth to a child, a mother, is a woman. Someone who has a uterus is a woman. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.” Sen Hawley"
Again, scientifically, that's a correct answer although there was at least one attempt to gestate a fetus inside a male but the fetus was only kept alive by attaching it to the male after female hormone treatments and anti-rejection drugs and in reality left the fetus in a parasitic relationship with the male. I believe the fetus didn't live to full term.
"When asked if a woman who had a hysterectomy was a woman, he demurred saying... “Yeah. Well, I don’t know, would they?"
Are you still considered a Primate if your thumbs are amputated? Since humans are, by definition, are bipeds, are you still a biped if you lose a leg?
Yes, Brown, was definitely evasive about something that is truly about science and not a matter for law or "Science". (Notice the capital "S" as if we were talking about God and has nothing to do with actual science which is a process and a method and not a God to be worshiped.)
Should I speak of apotemnophillia syndrome or other related neurological disorders?
So yes, the answer is obvious if you know what you're talking about.
What is a woman?
Delete"Woman Does Not Exist"
It is also in this seminar that Lacan takes up his controversial formula, first advanced in the seminar of 1970-1, "Woman does not exist" (la femme n'existe pas),[10] which he here rephrases as "there is no such thing as Woman" (il n'y a pas La femme).[11] As is clear in the original French, what Lacan puts into question is not the noun "woman", but the definite article which precedes it. In French the definite article indicates universality, and this is precisely the characteristic that women lack; women "do not lend themselves to generalisation, even to phallocentric generalisation."[12]
Not-All
Hence Lacan strikes through the definite article whenever it precedes the term femme in much the same way as he strikes through the A to produce the symbol for the barred Other, for like woman, the Other does not exist. To press home the point, Lacan speaks of woman as "not-all" (pas-toute);[13] unlike masculinity, which is a universal function founded upon the phallic exception (castration), woman is a non-universal which admits of no exception.
"Woman is a Symptom of Man"
Lacan goes on in 1975 to state that a "woman is a symptom."[14] More precisely, a woman is a symptom of a man, in the sense that a woman can only ever enter the psychic economy of men as a fantasy object (a), the cause of their desire.
@ Dave:
DeleteOne other thing.
By actual numbers true hermaphrodites represent 0.013% of the population. Shouldn't such an insignificant number give us pause to turn society as we know it in to some kind of dystopian hell?
‘’ The funny part is that he doesn't think there are any "plutocrats" in the DNC...’’
DeleteAside from your assumed authority of fabricating my thoughts FJ, nice deflection and nice SF impression.
Why use the singular "party" of plutocrats then? Why not use the plural "parties" of plutocrats for "inclusivity" of Republicans and Democrats?
DeleteBut now I'm sure you'll insist that words and grammer convey no definitive meaning...
The debate over what is a woman reminds me of a Mark Twain quote (and again, I exempt Dave Miller):
Delete“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
Dave,
DeleteFor me, the larger question regarding the "how do you define woman" question is why does it matter? How does how I define a woman, a Christian or anyone else affect you?
We live under a legal system that grants personhood to business corporations but not unborn fetuses. It's becoming a crime to answer the question correctly.
But I am sure that the Democrats will all tell you, when it comes to laws and regulation, as with constitutions...
Delete...words and grammar convey no "definitive" meanings...
...they mean whatever we'll later "judge" they'll mean.
DeletePlato, "Cratylus"
DeleteSOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.
Not all change is progress, but all progress is change.
DeleteI don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
DeleteHumpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’ ” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
2 men acquitted in alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer; jury deadlocks on other 2
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2022/04/2-men-acquitted-in-alleged-plot-to-kidnap-michigan-gov-gretchen-whitmer-jury-deadlocks-on-other-2.html
Not enough white supremacy militias engaging in anti-government plots, so the FBI thought they could provide some motivation...
Kind of like all those fake "Hate Crimes" on different campuses. Seems like the demand far outweighs the supply so the perpetrator ends up being the pretend victim... Then it just 'mysteriously' disappears from the 'news'.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if these were the same FBI agents sent to investigate the 'noose' on the garage door at Talladega.
People need to be free to openly discuss kidnapping and killing government officials without having to look over their shoulder in fear that the FBI will catch the stupid ones.
ReplyDeleteAfter losing the election, it's good to see that Trump still has a fabulous sense of humor:
ReplyDelete"I’ve gotta be the cleanest— I think I’m the most honest human being perhaps that god ever created" - NC Rally, 9 April
I don't why anybody listens to him anymore...
DeleteThe name is Blonde. James Blonde!
ReplyDelete:)
Delete