Agnostic.com

1 1

In order to protect fantasies from the rude illumination of reality, it becomes necessary to close-off sensory portals to maintain artifice in the realm of imagination; the only place it can survive. A flash or glimpse of reality is always felt as an attack upon the integrity of the delusion. This, because it is.

Shedding light on internalized delusions can't be felt any other way than as a personal attack also on the integrity of the person harboring them. This accounts for hysteria-like reactions like 'shutting out' and shouting down; condemnation and demonization; indictments of motives and name calling. They are non-intellectual defenses because one can't defend the imaginary from the kryptonite of reasoned examination.

An 'attack' can't qualify as an attack unless it bears credible destructive potential. Without that element no damage can occur. Why the need for fearful or defensive responses? Reacting to benign questioning or criticism as though credible doesn't weaken but strengthens.

Something incredible 'on the face' will see retaliation only from elitists who dismiss personally but see destructive potential for lessers; for their followers who are vitally necessary for 'keeping the faith'. It is and can only be a herd protection reaction. Why?
Because the opposite is so. The rudely felt illumination isn't benign after all. The glimpse is enough for monitors of the faithful to fear their inferior masses not ignoring but actually peering at and contemplating content.

As above, so below. People love to laugh, so handlers especially fear the medium of humor.

Silver1wun 7 Mar 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I am only responding to the meme because I don't read your drivel. Prove the accuracy of the alleged quotation or you are a fraud.

The reason you Trumpers don't understand the significance of expertise is because none of you have any. Also, let's see you prove that Rachel Levine is not a woman.

How about having fathered two children?

@racocn8 Having 2 children doesn't prove she's not a woman.

No need for me to prove anything a simple microscope could THOROUGHLY disclose as a lie. That is science; hard, fundamental science.

Thanks for not wading through all of my drivel. It paid off. Name calling, indictment of motive and self-admitted 'shutting out'. Batting at least 500 here.

Trumper?

She presents her gender as a woman, but having fathered children, she is a biological male. (I doubt she's a gynandromorph.) Every cell in her body has a y-chromosome, and no Barr bodies (inactive x-chromosomes).

@Silver1wun You are a fraud.

@LovinLarge Latest score:

INDICTMENT OF MOTIVE - 1
SHUTTING-OUT - 1
NAME CALLING/DEMONIZING - 2
REASONING - 0

@racocn8 I don't know Rachel Levine. Wikipedia uses the pronouns "her" and "she" throughout the entry and says she has 2 children. The onus to prove her male is on the one making the claim, and the proof has to relevant to the time the claim is being made, namely now.

@Silver1wun

Times you've proven your factual claims = 0

@LovinLarge Factual claims are not in need of proving, but possibly disproving. Wikipedia can call him she all it cares to.

I, in fact, out of politeness and respect for her gender role change would address her as that. I have no objection to anyone improving their life experience, happiness and happiness of others by doing whatever they are able to adjust identity and lifestyle.

It only harms others when their personal notion becomes something to impersonally mandate or legally compel others to accept. That is when they invite not so polite resistance.

So, after fathering two children, then choosing to present herself as a woman, she is now a biological woman? The two children are the proof she is a biological male presenting herself as a woman. Perhaps she has had surgery to present herself as a female, though that can only ever be superficially.

@racocn8 I don't know. I haven't made any claims about her, I have only asked for the claims others have made about her to be substantiated. But they weren't, not even the alleged quote.

There is a reason people don't substantiate their claims, because their claims are false. People who don't substantiate their factual claims have no credibility here or anywhere else.

@LovinLarge Silly, Random and Fun is the room/page category here. Had I posted it in the polotical category it would have suggested that it be taken as a serious assertion and quotation and not a.. and, um, not a, a joke.

Yes, it illustrates an attitude and ridicules on account of the attitude but IT'S A JOKE. Again, fanatics have ZERO sense of humor.

@Silver1wun It uses quotation marks. It is therefore asserted to be a quotation. "Jokes" made at the expense of another are not funny. You are a fraud.

@LovinLarge And you are a cornucopia of illustrative 'largesse' for which I am deeply grateful. I don't need this much assistance, but it's the thought that counts. Thank you again.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:657736
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.