lowenz on 21/9/2025 at 14:52

---

"you have to choose in life, either excellence or racial quotas"

US Christians (self proclaimed) talking about "success" and "excellence".....they can't even understand how Christianity works.

It's not a merit system, it's the damn (pun intended) dual system: you don't "excel" in something, you receive *grace* from God to bring *mercy* to the people, beginning from the *sinners* YOU'RE STILL PART OF (and never leave, until *death*, *judgement* and *salvation*, salvation you *CAN'T* earn because, same as talents, it's given by *grace*)
Same for empathy Kirk says "It's a New Age thing" (ahah), christian-wise you MUST be empathic (being brothers and sisters in Christ, that's how Christianity declines/inflects empathy), it's not an optional for "less prone to competition" people. It's intrinsic and if you don't feel that "communion" you're just out of Christianity by definition, because that's what the Holy Spirit is intended to bring (the communion, in the same way Jesus is in communion with God hence becoming his Word in the human world and accepting to be the Christ/Sacrifice to offer to mankind the salvation).

Damn 'muricans, they're so excited subverting the basics of what they boast about. They's so lost in that self-righteous subversion.

Nicker on 21/9/2025 at 16:56

---

Using words to generate violence, like Kirk did, enriching himself giving daily master classes on the technique? Absolutely on topic.



That's a false dichotomy, although the phrase "lack of awareness" does inform your statement.




Black and yellow are physical traits which people are born with, which is why mocking them by appropriation is considered objectively offensive. In addition it is usually intended to be hurtful or demeaning.

Sexual differentiation, which is essential for reproduction, is not the same as gender identity, even though it is a major component of gender identity. Gender identity is a spectrum of personal and social perceptions about the sex of all individuals existing on that spectrum (i.e. everybody). This is why any offense taken at the real or recreational expression of gender, is subjective. Whether it is a cruel or affectionate expression depends on the intention behind it. Drag isn't an attack on women, it is a celebration of femininity, which, like masculinity, exists in varying degrees within everybody.


Speaking of intentions; "Womanface" is a false equivalent. "Womanface" a is newly minted, derogatory term, invented for the expressed purpose of equating drag culture with racism. It is used to drag people who are simply enjoying the range of gender colours available to everyone, down to the same sad level of segregated hatred as the people who invented and use the word, in a cynical attempt to swell their ranks and steal credibility.

IMHO.

Nicker on 21/9/2025 at 18:56

---

I covered that categorically in my post. It was the central to the point.




Did you actually read it or was that a deflection from responding to this part?

demagogue on 21/9/2025 at 20:43

---

To put my 2 cents back in... I can respect some arguments against affirmative action and DEI (which is related but can be different), even when I disagree, there is a logic and worthwhile intention behind some arguments. But Kirk doesn't word what he's talking about in that way, even (especially) when you bend over backwards to take him in context.

To begin, these things can come at different levels. For sure if they're giving clearly unqualified people a position that's going to have all kinds of problems. I don't think DEI programs are that kind of problem.

I understand that the main approach of these kinds of programs is that there's a lot more qualified people than available placement and also qualified minorities make up a disproportionately smaller proportion of the pool of recruits for all kinds of reasons, and DEI is about ensuring the system doesn't work against qualified minority groups.

Anyway, Kirk words it in terms of an underlying mistrust of the groups being targeted. I mean you can look at it from the other way around. Trump's cabinet picks are flagrantly a barrel of morons that were put into positions of power by an openly corrupt pipeline. That is for sure a "DEI" program that goes way over the line, and people should very rightfully distrust those people in their position. RFK Jr. dismantling our entire health system. The FCC chair pushing a blatant censorship policy. The head of the EPA with the mission to destroy the EPA. The head of the FBI and Homeland Security hoping to make federal police and ICE Trump's personal SS force. I haven't even gotten to Hegseth yet. Okay, those are examples of targeted recruitment of unqualified people that's over the line.

Kirk could even pick some examples targeting minorities. Minority status as a factor in university admissions is an old debate where people disagreeing with that have I think at least reasonable arguments. But he tends to pick examples that aren't really about that ... like he's questioning if a Black woman in any professional position, a judge, a pilot, etc., is at all qualified. And it just smacks of reflexive distrust of that category. The positions he picks are in fields where it beggars belief that there's a corrupt pipeline to put in unqualified people as such.

- - - - -

Anyway, that's not even what I wanted to post about. I wanted to post about what I think is one of the most root issues underlying this whole thing, which is boys and young men being completely abandoned by any social connection, no mentorship, no community or romantic interaction, few job prospects, and not much hope of ever owning a home or having a good family life, etc., on top of which they're exploited by digital bigwigs, social media, porn websites, etc. This is already long, so I'm going to have to make a separate post about that later.

But that's the part about Kirk that I think is most important to focus on, both in the sense that I think he's addressing that gap, but not so much by trying to bridge it to give young men something to work towards as much as, for young white men at least, burning the bridges in rage, and he's feeding this unrealistic worldview that isn't really constructive -- nostalgia for a past where women & minorities knew their place and didn't "get in the way" of "men of action" fulfilling the American Dream / getting what they're entitled to. There's a lot of frustration and rage baiting underlying the whole thing that needs attention. I may unpack that some more later.

DuatDweller on 22/9/2025 at 01:31

---

What no more dolls for girls, and car toys for boys?
:weird: