412 Comments

Just look at deep blue Chicago where “undocumented” immigrants are getting priority over actual residents. People aren’t happy about it nor should they be. Open borders are killing the Dems.

Expand full comment

Openness to newcomers is a fundamental American virtue that I hope will be upheld to the same degree as the freedom of speech & religion, regardless of what voters think. You can't vote away the Constitution, and you can't vote closed the gates of heaven.

That doesn't -- surprisingly -- mean I disagree with your first sentence. The so-called progressive - and thus DNC -- attitude toward people who don't agree with their views has been, for quite some time, arrogant sanctimony rather than any attempt at empathy or at winning people over on the merits of the subject.

Democrats-at-large have retreated to a fatal degree from arguing for very many things at all on the merits of the subject. This is because many of their pillars do not in fact stand on any arguable merits. Nothing has ever shown any long-term benefit to bizarre transgenderist pseudomedical practices. Nothing has ever shown any long-term benefit to institutions or to minority groups form affirmative action programs. There is no gosh darn reason that mostly-middle-class student loan debtors should be relieved of their debt over, say, a working-class person with medical debt from an injury or credit card debt from a period of unemployment.

I am of the belief that, one to one, most people of any degree of religious faith can be helped to understand the fairness, benefit & rectitude of a welcoming approach to newcomers to this country. That is NOT, however, the approach of the Democratic-party-at-large, because its young & outspoken members are not politicians willing to discuss & compromise but absolutists who are accustomed to demand & victory. That is how they took the DNC and they very well expect to take the rest of society that way too. The fact that it isn't working doesn't faze them a bit.

Expand full comment

You can go and welcome them into your house, you absolute clown. Enjoy the rape, and killers will keep you in nice company. 'Newcomers' lmao, is this the new term you invented for the criminals invading the country?  People are being killed, you idiot. Your open border psychosis caused this. 

Heaven has strict border controls. 

Hell has open borders. 

Expand full comment

Heaven is kept by St. Peter. Are you he? No - you bar men from this our Eden on the guilt of no crime or misdeed but of their birth!

Vile would-be tyrant over earthly heaven! This is the pride which damns you to misery in life - and after, indeed, hell must take even you, to roast you in some fitting pit.

Oblivion would be my sentence to the hater of his fellow man! Am I then more harsh or merciful than God?

Expand full comment

Your nick is "RealEuropeanPatriot" and have a photo of an American president.

You are the carnal epithome of Yalta brainwashing.

In other words, you are basically a cuck

Expand full comment

Damn, dude. It's enough to just say "I prefer less immigration".

Expand full comment

Immigration is a legal process. These savage criminals storming the border are committing a crime. Do not conflate the two.

Expand full comment

Fundamental questions: 1) Should we have a border? 2) If so, is it our right and responsibility to control that border, to vet those coming in? 3) Does it help anyone when the there is a chaotic free-for-all on that border? This is the essence of common sense.

Expand full comment

Openness to newcomers via _legal and controlled_ immigration, not open borders chaos and insanity.

Expand full comment

Just can't get past your third word. Newspeak.

Expand full comment

"Newcomer" etymology: from Middle English newe-comere, equivalent to new- +‎ comer. Compare Old English nīwcumen (“new comer, neophyte, novice”).

I read books older than 1984 -- apologies if my archaic language is confusing.

Expand full comment

Nowhere in the constitution does it say to facilitate immigration. “Newcomers” are not welcome; they are rats who should be exterminated.

Expand full comment

That’s fucking Nazi type language

Expand full comment

Rats indeed, we free! Rats who have eaten all your chains and empires and set Liberty the ruler of the world! Sensible to hate us so, who will not give tyranny a moment's peace, but chew at its bindings every second, wherever we can find them! Bring your proudest weapons, worm. It is life and liberty will take the day.

Expand full comment

"Fight to save to Democracy... until the majority disagrees with you on a point"

If you want to make an argument for open borders dude that is your perogative but we can absolutely vote our gates closed and have in the past.

Gun rights are far more akin to the fundamental american nature of the rights to free speech and religion you laid out but (correct me if i'm wrong) i doubt you have the same absolutist attitude towards them.

Expand full comment

Every attempt to close the gates has resulted in a bittering of factionalism and a taking of sides until all hell breaks loose. This happened before the Civil War when your dim lot tried to bar out Catholics, it happened before the Great Depression when your dim lot tried to bar out Eastern Europeans, and it happened before the turmoil of the 60s when your dim lot tried to bar out Asians & Latin Americans.

New blood disrupts partisanship because newcomers don't have the same sets of preferences. We are seeing this now with Asian-Americans, who prefer a strong government & good social services, but are also in favor of strong policing and selective schools, and are very leery of racialst policies, regardless of who they are intended to help. They thus don't fit cleanly into the existing Democratic or Republican set of preferences. It's the same with Latin Americans, who broadly favor a strong social safety net, but also broadly oppose abortion.

Moreover, on a local level, it's almost always newcomers who start to rejuvenate decayed neighborhoods, starting communities and businesses in places that are too grim for almost any born-here Americans to want to live in.

Those facts aside -- the right to keep and bear arms, being necessary to a well-regulated militia, is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. I think you will agree that regulation of some kind has become necessary, if it was not always, due to the advancement of technology. I think some on the left side of things have fixated on guns as the sole cause of urban violence, and have a fantasy that somehow banning all guns will turn every run-down neighborhood into sunny Sesame Street.

I think that is naive. Depressed areas in other countries are equally run-down and subject to crime. They don't have nearly the same murder rates -- but that indicates that guns aren't the cause of bad neighborhoods, but an aggravating factor that turns violence & street crime into murder. Yet the type of gun matters here least of all. They could be using Civil War revolvers without very much of a change in outcome. All the assault weapons bans in the world won't move the needle on the murder rate in DC -- but many on the left side are in denial about this. They have a firm belief that getting the guns out will "fix" these neighborhoods to their satisfaction, and they stick to it like the dickens, because they don't like considering any of the alternatives.

Some might feel this cold, but gun-related injury is not that high on the list of things that kill Americans. I have seen a few serious car accidents, been in a semi-serious one, and been on a bus that hit a woman, but I've never seen a gun in someone's hand who wasn't a police officer. I haven't lived in the nicest places, either.

If there ever happens to be the political will to clarify, qualify or narrow the 2nd amendment, such an act is definitionally within the Constitutional authority of the people. I don't think that's particularly likely in the near future, but it also wouldn't be the end of the world if it did happen. If your concern is fighting domestic tyranny, consider how the herdsmen of Afghanistan fought us -- homemade bombs. It is basically impossible to prevent people from building weapons of some kind darn quick in a technological society. There are enough supplies in a single Home Depot to equip a very effective resistance for years - take it from a chemistry major.

To return to the subject -- the free equality of a body of men is the fundamental element of a republic. Democracy, by comparison, is an ideal state in which each person in a society has an equal voice. These concepts are, as the mathematicians say, "orthogonal." Perfect democracy is inherently impossible, as some are incapable of registering their opinion, and all societies have made various rules about whose opinion counts - those of minors, felons, and noncitzens don't here, for example.

The attempt to approach as closely as possible to perfect democracy is noble. Yet it stumbles when, as happens with some frequency, the opinion of the majority is to give power to an autocrat. This is where the bands of the republic reinforce democracy. The republic does not permit an autocrat. The intervention of the republic enables the continuance of democracy.

That the free and equal body of men, for its preservation, which is the preservation of liberty itself, is obligated to grow itself as quickly and mightily as it can, the more ably to defend liberty from the tyrants of the world, I assert as a self-evident truth.

They who would constrict and contain the free and equal body of men -- putting it in danger from its enemies -- in some wrongheaded attempt to "keep a slice of the pie" -- apparently forgetting that sliced pie stales quick -- I hold them to be autocrats, small as they might be, and many as they might number.

You'll notice I didn't argue for "open borders." A free & equal body of men is permitted, for its preservation, to make rules about who may be admitted thereto. Those with criminal convictions or proven connections to criminal organizations, it is within the republic's power to bar, as it does citizens convicted of serious crimes.

I do think the barring out of innocent people coming here to work & to participate in our society is a moral wrong, a short-sighted, stupid, and self-harming act, and an affront to the principle of human brotherhood, which is the very basis of free society, and the rock on which rests our entire edifice -- not merely the United States, but the entire English world. It is brotherhood, and not blood, which is our root and pedestal.

Expand full comment

My dude i have a double major in history and economics. If you have any academic source which backs up your position that ethnic diversity INCREASES the stability of nations I would LOVE to read it as basically all the academic studies which I have read on this subject say the opposite:

https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332

The case to be made for immigration (so far as it exists) is NOT in increasing the diversity of a nation (if you want to se what true diversity produces look up what happened to Yugslavia in the 1990s) the case for immigration is that it can happen WITHOUT increasing diversity. That we can ASSIMILATE the people who come to this nation into "Americans" and this itself can become a coherent ethnicity with a coherent socio-cultural bond. But to celebrate diversity is to celebrate the very thing which pushes against that. It is to celebrate what makes us different rather then what makes us the same, to drive us towards civil strife and ultimately civil war just as it did in the case of the british empire and the french empire and the spanish empire and all the other multi-ethic empires of europe that dies along the exact same axis time and time again: Diversity.

Expand full comment

I didn't say anything about ethnic diversity. I said more people. I don't care which people. Europeans don't really reproduce anymore. You're left with other people.

>My dude i have a double major in history and economics

Shew, don't tell, "my dude."

Expand full comment

The older and outspoken members of Congress are politicians....

I'll allow you to complete the above sentence in your own words.

Expand full comment

"." -- and I believe that does suffice.

Politicians, for all their stripes, are a breed above, separate, and apart from the arrogant, incapable, ideological absolutists who are trying to replace them. And I do refer to the primitive partisans of both present parties.

Effective absolutists are one thing - these crude and garish goons are quite another. They are a pure embarrassment. And, again, I do refer to both styles of face-paint.

Expand full comment

Understand this, Dr. Y. Every single country has the exact type of government, or lack of, that it deserves to have.

Expand full comment

Has no country ever changed its government for the better? Politicians, those wily creatures of election and procedure, are an improvement on dictators and kings, and it really is as simple as that.

Expand full comment

Republicans killed their own border deal because Trump told them to.

Expand full comment

It was a horrible "deal" that would have legalized a lot of what Biden is doing.

Expand full comment

Why were Congressional Republicans ready to pass it until Trump gave the order not to? Are they all secretly in league with Biden & the illegals?

Sh*t-swallower.

Expand full comment

Yeah, a lot of them are. It was a horrible deal. The immigration restrictionists who aren't MAGA (CIS, Mickey Kaus,etc) all uniformly rejected it.

Expand full comment

Nativists all bear the same evil mark.

Expand full comment

The claim was that the GOP killed the border deal because of Trump, dumbfuck.

Expand full comment

Such a high level of reasoned discussion.

Expand full comment

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

---

Better? If you had a shred of real education or human sensibility I could speak with you by means of reason, but you don't.

Expand full comment

Dr. Y, if you had a shred of decency or shame, you would delete the offending comment and apologize. I was simply summarizing an important problem with the deal . . . and you call me a s**teater.

Eff off, jerk.

Expand full comment

Ok Spiky, if you think that a poem should dictate immigration policy while you go on about your total obsession with transgender issues, you’re even stupider than I thought. Get a life outside substack, dumbass.

Expand full comment

I was replying to Dr. Y, not ER, to be clear.

Expand full comment

There is no reasoning with you retarded fucks.

Expand full comment

Dr Y: 5000 illegals a day is over 1.8 million a year. Are you okay with that?

Expand full comment

Don't feed the troll. He's made his case ad nauseam, and it lacks merit entirely.

Expand full comment

Let's call at an even two. Never know when they might have a baby tucked away somewhere. In a *hundred* years, that'll be...200 million people. And China has...*checks notes*...1.5 billion people. Some quick math will show us that that's....not even a drop in the gosh darn bucket.

Sometimes I wonder if you goombas are CCP assets. Your sort of shortsighted, pigheaded, unpatriotic, shallow greed is exactly what will result in China fast becoming the dominant power in the world. America needs more people or China wins. It's not a complicated problem.

We can for now omit the obvious fact that a welcoming posture toward newcomers is the foundation of how the United States became the sole preeminent world power...because I suspect, at root, you resent the fact that Liberty rules the world.

Expand full comment

Wow, you are so incredibly stupid.

Expand full comment

You want a couple of billion people here? Fuck you idiot.

Expand full comment

That's a myth.

Expand full comment

The US House is mostly made up of individuals who spend their two years in office working to get attention and raise money in hopes of being re-elected. That doesn't really allow for reading proposed legislation. Republicans haven't really fully embraced the Democrat strategy of never solving a problem that can be a wedge issue in the next election.

Expand full comment

"Are the corperate whores who run our government corperate whores who want to keep the flow of undocumented immigrations coming into the country so they can keep wages low and destroy labor's negotiating power from the labor shortage???"

YES!

Expand full comment

Acting like there isn't more than enough to go around in America -- of all places -- is the height of gauche. What the average American eats could feed two people. On that alone we could be doubled.

Think about what you're saying. "We should turn away these people so desperate for a better life that they risked everything to get here because....the rest of us might get paid a little less."

Have you considered that they are also workers? What a bizarre excuse for solidarity -- here we see a know-nothing nativist in socialist clothing. He thinks he's people!

Expand full comment

lol tell me you've never been hungry without telling me you've never been hungry.

Not everyone was born in the upper middle class dickhead.

Expand full comment

The border deal, which would have handed border laws and any future enforcement over to the Democrat-controlled DC courts permanently, enabling an open border? the border deal that did nothing to stop the illegals from coming in and instead would have sped up the process of their Marxist judges allowing them to permanently stay in the country? 

'Republicans' what 1 out of touch braindead RINO senator wanted is not what the party or the voters wanted. We'll make sure that traitor has a quick retirement. He can join Turtle Mitch McConnel, who's also retiring, and soon Biden will join them too.

Expand full comment

So what you’re saying is Republicans suck on border policy and refuse to fix it.

Expand full comment

I understand that the Republicans sent a bill to the Senate early in the current session, which has not even been reviewed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. With a Democrat president and Senate, what else do you suggest the Republicans do?

I don't think "vote for a bill you disagree with, because it's the only thing that will pass" is a reasonable compromise. The Republicans could say the same thing about their own bill, by demanding that the Democrats vote for it.

I'm in favor of Congress passing a law that will clear up a lot of open questions about immigration (specifically I would prefer making the legal process much faster and much easier, while making the process for anyone skipping that to be much harder, but I'm open to alternatives that make sense). What I'm not open to is one side demanding the other capitulate on a major issue that motivates their voters. It's a non-starter.

Expand full comment

Mr. Doolittle,

It sounds like you are advocating for a reasonable compromise, something I'm always in favor of. It is my understanding that this *was* a compromise, with Democrats giving Republicans are great deal of what they wanted, while retaining only a few of their own priorities (such as, as you said, making the legal process faster and easier). The bill also makes it faster and easier to kick out people trying to take advantage of asylum, something that we desperately need to be able to do.

We cannot expect Democrats to capitulate either, given that they hold the presidency and a majority in the Senate.

I have not read the bill, of course; it's absurdly long, so I'm aware I may have missed something. What about it struck you as requiring the Republicans to capitulate? What particular things about it were objectionable, in your opinion?

Expand full comment

Why is it the republicans job to fix something Biden broke? Aren't you retards the 'party in power' ? I guess Mike Johnson is the real President.

Expand full comment

Ever since Rick Perry was Governor, Texas has spent billions of dollars on the border. If the problem still persists, then that suggests they haven’t actually been using that money on the border. According to my friend from Texas, it went to prisons instead. Granted, that’s just one state, but Texas has been under Republican control for decades now. They still haven’t fixed it and they can’t blame that on Democrats. Now imagine that on a national level. Republicans aren’t the ones who have to fix anything because they are the ones who broke it in the first place.

Expand full comment

The key is getting those "newcomers" registered to vote in time to overwhelm actual disgruntled citizen voters in the next election. They've done it in California and transformed this state into a one-party fortress.

Expand full comment

Democrats (and the GOP until Trump) think "immigrants" are a race. In reality they are many different races, and even when they are the same race current citizens don't necessarily have solidarity with illegal immigrants. Sometimes it's the opposite (illegal immigrants tend to overwhelm immigrant areas first).

The GOP needs to learn this lesson too. For a long time it though amnesty was the key to winning over immigrants, when in reality they vote on domestic issues like everyone else.

Expand full comment

Nimbyist Democrats are complaining about a few thousand migrants. What happened to'sanctuary cities'? If the Democrats didn't have hypocrisy, they wouldn't have anything at all.

Expand full comment

Thought Biden used the term illegals which from the President is a major error.

Expand full comment

His documentation status should be: Dead by firing squad. The illegal alien scum bastard should be sent to Gitmo at least. 

Expand full comment

Dude get a life lol.

Expand full comment

Open borders and constant war.

Expand full comment

My sister, a Seattle-area liberal and news junkie, whose husband was a professor at the community college which held a "no White's day" event on campus two years ago, is - surprisingly, only a moderate-left Democrat, a Rutgers New Jersey transplant from 20 years ago. We can, and do, talk politics. She is reasonably acquainted with the 'operative" facts, considers me a loveable, thoughtful racist...etc., but she absolutely HATES Trump. The main point of my observation is simply that these people have moved to the handful of placeswhere these views predominate. She is no Prayapal Progressive, but that doesn't matter in suburban Seattle. (Yes, i know we have our crazies, too - but they are (thank God!) fairly dispersed throughout the 50 states. They don't "huddle" togehter in progressive caves, contemplating how to defeat those they consider 'Neanderrathals'!

Expand full comment

I never understood why Trump broke these people. I mean there is nothing wrong with partisanship and plenty of people loathed W and hated Obama, but Trump hate was next level.

Expand full comment

The answer is another entry in the annals of "look, just believe them when they describe what they're doing:" when they say he's trying to "trigger the libs," he's trying to trigger (cause trauma-like responses in) the libs (the supporters of his political opponents). The campaign figured out that playing in to the "rapist of America" narrative the media was constructing out of his numerous scandals elicited shrill responses from survivors, and made his supporters feel like they were on a successful offensive. The new stuff about blood and poison, and camps for immigrants, is an attempt to redouble the effort.

Expand full comment

It's true, the modern left is too weak. We really should be rounding up and executing Republican trash like the traitors to America they are.

Expand full comment

Illegal aliens*

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Mar 15
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Does that make them petarded?

Expand full comment

A co worker of mine was eating fish sticks. He dipped it in tartar sauce and took a bite. He then dipped it again and said, “Look! This fish stick is retart(d)ed!”

Expand full comment

Yep. Dems (especially "progressives") deny reality at their own peril. It's a class thing, in the end: Dems used to be for the workingman; now Dems are for young white rich elite Wokeness. (Actually the Dem party is *not* solely for that but the loud 8% progressive minority who have captured media creates this perception.) Working class voters of all races are fed up with Dems and I don't blame them. Racializing everything and worrying about the .0001% of trans people (mostly rich white kids) and ignoring crime and immigration (which mostly affects working-class and low-income people) is a losing game. People are sick of the constant gaslighting, denial and projection. Time for change. I personally do not like Trump at all; nor do I think he's a solution. But Dems are failing.

I wrote about Black Americans' views re Pew research here (like you said: Not progressive): https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/some-surprising-data-on-black-americans

Michael Mohr

"Sincere American Writing"

https://michaelmohr.substack.com/

Expand full comment

Just try asking a so-called progressive if they think the Democratic Party's unblinking adherence to bizarre, barbaric & regressive genderist ideology could *possibbly in any way* be hurting them with any of these groups of voters.

You'll get called a -phobe for even asking the question. Not for advising any policy or reconsideration of doctrine - *merely for asking the question.*

Aside from the fact that the answer to that question seems to be a rather resounding DUH...the point is that, when you aren't even allowed to discuss a subject, what you end up with is called a "blind spot."

Expand full comment

Dr.Y, This 66 year old, queer "so-called progressive" is here ready to discuss. Great profile name, by the way.

Expand full comment

Do you think it's troubling that the data-free assertions of Psychologists are apparently, in America, taken as a basis for medical practice in the absence of scientific evidence? Do you think it becomes more troubling when unverifiable Psychological assertions are used as a basis for medical practice despite contradictory scientific evidence?

Do you think it's regressive that "gender" (i.e. sex-based stereotypes) is treated as "real" by purportedly reality-based medicine?

Do you think lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation (and the multitude of negative effects thereof) is a remotely reasonable, proportionate or acceptable consequence for a Psychologically-oriented treatment program with never-more-than-dubious evidence for even Psychological benefit?

Are you capable of differentiating norms regarding individual adult behavior (as in, I don't think how you dress or what you do to yourself as an adult on your own initiative is anyone else's business within reasonable limits), and I certainly don't let sexual stereotypes affect my decisions) from the promulgation of purportedly "scientific" medical, Psychological, and institutional doctrines to which ideological adherence is demanded absolutely? Do you understand that acceptance of a prescriptive doctrine as a part of medicine is an entirely different subject from the rights of individuals?

Expand full comment

Yes, to all of your questions.

My turn.

Do you think, as a society, we should have registration, permits and some amount of schooling before allowing anyone to become a parent?

Expand full comment

I didn't say you get a turn, and you certainly haven't earned one with that silly question.

Expand full comment

“Yes” is a pretty clear answer to your questions. Imo give and take is both fair and normal. You ceded your turn when you clicked “post.”

Expand full comment

There is a specific reason for that question. But, I'm fine without your answer. I already know what your answer is, as well as the majority of our neighbors too.

Have a most pleasant weekend.

Expand full comment

Yikes! that's a lot of mischaracterizations! "data-free assertions of psychologists made in absence of scientific evidence" is a quite scary phrase!

Too bad you made it up! Clearly you aren't interested in having a good faith discussion. Trans people aren't going anywhere, you can cry about it all you want! Doctors influence medical policy, not politicians, and if the majority of doctors say trans people are valid and need special care, eventually that'll be the opinion that comes out on top!

It's quite bizarre that you care so deeply about an issue which does not materially affect you! Maybe you should look into that.

Expand full comment

>Yikes! that's a lot of mischaracterizations!

It's a lot of questions, none of which you attempted to answer.

>Doctors influence medical policy, not politicians, and if the majority of doctors say trans people are valid and need special care, eventually that'll be the opinion that comes out on top!

The evidence, as it is finally permitted to come out, seems steadily to be moving policy & consensus in the opposite direction. The few purported lodestars of research justifying these practices - and even then only ever in Psychological terms, rather than evidence of whole-life benefit or a weighing of emotional benefit against physical consequence - have one and all proven not-even-crafty efforts at misrepresentation and distortion of muddled-at-best results *even under the plainly tilted conditions and questions used to conduct the investigations.* Not only was there no good evidence, *contradictory evidence was hidden.* How can that be defended? Why was there a motive for it to be done? Those who hide evidence do it for one reason: it contradicts the finding they would like to reach.

"It generally happens that in every bad cause some information arises out of the evidence of its defenders themselves, which serves to expose in one part or another the weakness of their defence. It is the characteristic of such a cause, that if it be at all gone into, even by its own supporters, it is liable to be ruined by the contradictions in which those who maintain it are for ever involved." - Burke

Lots of things don't materially affect me & yet I care about them because it upsets me to see other people harmed. I'm sorry you don't feel that way & I'm not really sure how you get through life with such a self-centered morality.

As for whether or not this materially affects me, however, let me ask you: when may I mourn for the sister I am told never was? Where does her grave stand & where does her memory lie? In me alone, & I may not speak of her? It will be the end of this nonsense that it has rent her, and many, from reality, sense, happiness, nature, and freedom: what has been done to her & to so many curious, loving & trusting people under color of medicine is a shocking horror that will be written in history books beside eugenics as a perversion of science and beside female genital mutilation as a primitive cultural barbarism. And it will be -- no society can long maintain itself on such cruel error and fundamental wronging of nature. Perhaps, like when people of reason fought & died for emancipation, we may expect some Americans to cling to this new barbarism for shockingly long once it is well ingrained in their thinking. I hope this moral evil is excised less painfully.

Expand full comment

You should consider entering the ministry because you're better at preaching than you are at coming up with a coherent argument.

"Do you think lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation (and the multitude of negative effects thereof) is a remotely reasonable, proportionate or acceptable consequence for a Psychologically-oriented treatment program with never-more-than-dubious evidence for even Psychological benefit?" is one of the most loaded questions I've ever seen, and yet you wonder why people don't answer you directly?

As someone with a, quote "lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation" I think I'm much more qualified to speak on its effects than you are? HRT is awesome and anybody who wants it should be able to get it :) The "negative effects" you speak of are the desired result for many people, and I've witnessed the life-saving psychological effects it has myself. Your fight against the inevitable is in vain. Trans people have always been here and we will remain. No amount of regressive rhetoric can exterminate us.

Expand full comment

Who said anything about validity or needing care? Personally, I am disillusioned with the democratic party because my views, though they have not changed, have gone from radical left in the 1990s to DINO and "transphobic" today. Again, as Dr Y says, questions are not permitted.

My beliefs, if you're curious? I believe that gender dysphoria is real, and that you should get the treatment you need. The treatment should be covered by your insurance, whatever the treatment may be up to and including gender reassignment surgery. You should be able to use the restrooms you wish. However reasonable and accommodating that sounds to me, I am still transphobic because I don't think born-males should be playing in female sports, I think pronouns are absolute horseshit, and don't start with me about men and bleeding. Don't try to tell me who I am, and I won't try to tell you who you are.

The face of your movement doesn't help, either. Ms. Jenner might have been one hell of an athlete but not much of an academic.

Expand full comment

Because I'm trans I have to like Caitlyn Jenner? That's genuinely idiotic, no trans person is a monolith. If I have to outright say it I'm not much of a fan of Dylan Mulvaney either lol. If you have a problem with a basic element of the English language, I think the change in your politics came from growing old and bitter, not the Democratic party moving in any direction.

Expand full comment

And...what exactly are your credentials that qualify you to review the scientific evidence and conclude that you are right, and the American Psychiatric Association is wrong?

Expand full comment

You may read the reports of the NHS on the subject for yourself.

Expand full comment

The great part is that I don't have to waste my time doing so, because scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this issue have arrived at a consensus on the issue. Either this "report" represents genuine advancement of scientific knowledge, in which case the scientific consensus will change to reflect that, or it is complete bullshit pseudoscience, in which case it will go down as one more piece of evidence of the Tories' unfitness to govern. I know which way I'm betting.

And in the event I did choose to read the report, I could actually evaluate it critically, because I have an advanced degree in a hard scientific field. How about you?

Expand full comment

If you actually think that trans people are mostly rich white kids, it calls everything else you say and think into question. Because it's plainly nonsense, and if you were careful enough to be worth trusting you'd know that.

The trans population, at least in America, is less white than the overall population. And trans people are not well paid.

I think it's worth paying attention to simple facts like this. I don't actually know why the Democrats seem to be failing with nonwhite voters. But I do know how to check basic facts, and that it's not a good idea to trust anyone who doesn't.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-wage-gap-among-lgbtq-workers-in-the-united-states

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Race-Ethnicity-Trans-Adults-US-Oct-2016.pdf

Expand full comment

Trans is a grift for leftist white kids to leap to the top of the progressive stack.

Expand full comment

You do not live in the real world.

Expand full comment

That might be true of some of the Q+ categories, but I don't think it's generally true of trans people.

Expand full comment

your stats are from 2016. but either way the fact is most trans influencers are rich white kids, and they have an oversized role in political representation of trans people, which is a huge problem

Expand full comment

turns out it's easier to look good (i am including camera equipment) if you're rich!

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Mar 16
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Eh idk. I am a non-binary person who…sort of fits the stereotype? I am white. I’m 30, not exactly a kid anymore. A few years ago I got a fairly well paying job and now I do ok, but I haven’t ever really been rich.

I used to work for a camp serving mostly well off suburban kids. There were lots of non-binary people there, mostly rich white kids.

But I also attended a job training program around the same time - most attendees were nonwhite and low income. Just as many non-binary people there, almost all nonwhite. Tbh this surprised me as well. At this point I think the reason so many visible non-binary people are white is just the reality that in America, if you’re white, you’re more likely to be wealthy and much more likely to be well connected.

Expand full comment

As a trans woman myself, if there's a party needlessly worrying over me I can assure you it's the party writing hundreds of bills targeting me because they think I'm a 'threat', not the party making virtue signals to people like me while offering 0 substantive legislative recognition.

Expand full comment

You are a male with a mental disorder

Expand full comment

Ratio

Expand full comment

You're a cultist who gibbers in duckspeak.

Expand full comment

My dude you literally support an ideology based on convincing the mentally ill to castrate themselves if they think were born "in the wrong body"

Expand full comment

You also have an overwhelming opposition to other gender-affirming surgery, such as breast implants, lipo, and other surgery that may women may get to appear more feminine right? That's also high on your radar?

Did you know cosmetic plastic surgery for minors occurs at more than 1000x the rate of any sort of transgender surgery in minors?

Expand full comment

Yes you dumb fuck yes.

No teenager should be getting any cosmetic surgery of any kind. Its why in many states laws are passed banning minors from getting tatoos as well (and yes before you ask i aslo support bans on circumcision for minors). I will say on an AESTHETIC level castration in particular is particularly abhorent to me as it seems to have a higher degree of permnant mutilation then many of the other examples you listed.

But on principle i am against all of it.

I think it is all child abuse.

Expand full comment

You're in a cult too, one concerned with controlling others' very selves according to your religion.

It's 2024, not 1524.

That shit is beyond played out.

Expand full comment

My dude you are literally claiming i am in a cult for supporting a guy who questioned the legitimacy of an election while youe advocate

children.

cutting.

their.

fucking.

dicks.

off.

because.

they.

are.

anxiety.

The fucking irony if fathomless.

Expand full comment

I'd be the first to call out Trump if he did something I didn't like or betrayed the populist right, but he has not done so; instead, he has been the most committed politician to the cause. 

You hate him for the same reasons. We love him. The media hates him for the same reasons we love him. 

Expand full comment

No you wouldn't. You've drank the Kool-Aid. He bows to some of the worst asset-stripping globalist billionaire owners one can imagine, like Bob Mercer, Paul Singer and Carl Icahn, and you just ignore it.

Expand full comment

If trans people dont want to be viewed as a threat maybe they shouldn't directly attempt to antagonize people.

People can have their personal views about the morality of homosexuality but the truth is the REASON homosexuality ultimately got normalized in this country is that homosexual people acted like normal people. They didn't put on their fetish get ups and go read stories to 6 year olds nor did they (for the most part) twerk naked on public streets durring pride month NOR did they try to piss in the same bathroom as people who were made uncomfortable by it.

If Gender really is a "meaningless social construct to you" why do you CARE what bathroom you piss in?

If the difference is """"meaningless"""" to you why not just be polite to people who dont feel the same way??

Expand full comment

who is "they" ? You're making up a person to get mad at, when did I say anything about bathrooms? I don't even use the women's, mainly for my own safety so your angry jab didn't even land. I'm polite to the people around me and don't force my identity down people's throats, why should my healthcare be restricted by the government because a few weirdos who also call themselves trans make you uncomfortable?

Expand full comment

As long as your over 18 I dont think it should.

But there is a push in your comunity for it to be extended towards people who are under 18 and that is utterly fucking unacceptable.

It is the moral equivilant of pedophilia.

Expand full comment

If a child wants hormones, if their parents are okay with them having hormones, and their doctor says "it is in the best medical interest of this child to be allowed to take hormones"

Why the fuck should the government be allowed to step in and say "no! you CAN'T have hormones"

Expand full comment

In answer to your question:

for the same fucking reason the government should step in to say "NO! You cant have your child fuck adults"

A child can """want""" to be a pirate, a wizard or a Jedi.

An adult understands a child isn't old enough to make serious decisions just as they aren't old enough to decide to fuck yet.

I dont care if parents "are okay" with children cutting their dicks off anymore then i'm okay with parents who "are okay" with children having sex with adults.

Its a degenerate practice and in any decent society it would be punishable by years in prison.

And i am willing to fight and die to ensure it is punishable by years in prison in this country.

Are you?

Would you die for the right of CHILDREN to cutt off their dicks???

Expand full comment

You're correct , Sincere AM. Those auto workers are definitely... elitists. Oh, and crimes are down, according to the FBI. But then that doesn't fit your narrative.

Expand full comment

The same FBI that hasn't arrested a single Epstein client? The same FBI that ignored sexual abuse reports from US gymnasts? Color me shocked.

Expand full comment

You're not being held hostage. As an American citizen you're help would be most appreciated I'm fairly confident. It is odd that even the churches have bad apples, you'd like to believe that pretty much every organization does. But then, some choices are difficult. Tis' simple to compile your own charts to fit whatever it is you'd like it to. I'm too lazy, I'd rather listen to people like you and then move on to my next set of errors.

Expand full comment

Why hasn't the FBI arrested a single Epstein client? They have the entire client list, along with recorded videos. You know the answer, but you're too afraid to say it.

Expand full comment

I'm afraid to say what? That you're a fucking idiot who has absolutely the worst traits of humanity wrapped up into a shit hole called Ed, who fears to have a profile picture?

Naw, I'm not fearful of anyone's ignorance, though admittedly, I still have empathy for those 900 Jim Jones, Kool aid drinkers and their selfless love for authority.

My vote goes to the guy who hasn't called our POW's losers.

Have a marvelous weekend, sweetie.

Expand full comment

Here’s another one for you. Why did the FBI not only protect Dr Larry Nassar despite numerous accusations of sexual assault by gymnasts, but also changed the testimony of some of the victims?

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1036968966/gymnasts-nassar-fbi-senate-hearing-simone-biles-aly-raisman-wray

Expand full comment

Afraid to answer the question. It’s a simple one. Why hasn’t the FBI arrested a single Epstein client?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Mar 16
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Nah, crime rates are fine. Far, far lower than they were when I grew up. It's just the media sensationalizing things because they make more money by scaring cowardly little pissants like you.

You are the one who chooses to live in fear. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Expand full comment

It actually hit worldwide after that video was public. Wouldn't you imagine that may have an effect on our neighbors, and what they may consider fairness? Look at the 112 individuals trump pardoned in his last year in office. Be honest with yourself. Do any of those pardons bother you in any way? I'm inclined to guess that a good many people are viewing how unfair justice can be, and do things they'd not normally do.

Expand full comment

The idea that trans people are mostly rich white kids is new to me. Many famous trans women are black (Laverne Cox, Janet Mock), and so many of the trans women out on the streets are people of color.

Expand full comment

Honestly I feel like conservative media is more worried about trans issues than traditional outlets and even most progressive sites. It's certainly a major issue. But my impression is that it's talked about by conservatives more.

Expand full comment

Why are you obsessed with such a tiny group of people? And what do you gain by focusing so much vitriol on them? It's not like Democrats are forcing young children to tell their parents they are in a state of distress? Perhaps a walk will calm your nerves.

Expand full comment

Republicans voted against every measure to alleviate inflation.

Expand full comment

What measures would those be? Increasing deficit spending worsens inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods.

Expand full comment

Modern progressives are naïve philosophical idealists who believe that if a bill is called the “Inflation Reduction” Act then it must just be about reducing inflation. How could it be otherwise? Just as Antifa is solely about opposing fascism and nothing else. What else could it be about?

Expand full comment

Wow. How profound.

Expand full comment

"Increasing deficit spending worsens inflation."

Yet for the past 40 fucking years, Republican administrations always raise the deficit while Democratic ones lower it. Crazy how that works.

Expand full comment

Obama doubled the debt and Biden has created an un-sustainable fiscal situation. You want to call out the GOP for being hypocrites on spending you 100 percent have a point , but have no illusion about Democrats.

Expand full comment