New York City Mayor Eric Adams Wants You to Love Big Brother
A surveillance state is no less tyrannical when the snoops really believe it's for your own protection.

There's a common type of government official who sincerely believes the world would be better and their suffering subjects much happier if the restraints were removed and politicians were free to act as they wish. That their sincere belief in their goodness is exactly why we need those restraints always escapes them. The latest example of the breed is New York City Mayor Eric Adams who, unironically, urges his constituents to embrace the surveillance state because "Big Brother is protecting you."
Adams, a former police officer who took office at the beginning of 2022, has made an issue of crime in the city, which is rising following pandemic-era disruptions to society after decades of decline. He returned to crime last week in an interview with Politico's Sally Goldenberg and Joe Anuta:
Adams promised an expansion of technology-assisted policing to detect weapons. Over the past year, he has promoted the use of cameras and lauded divisive facial recognition devices.
"It blows my mind how much we have not embraced technology, and part of that is because many of our electeds are afraid. Anything technology they think, 'Oh it's a boogeyman. It's Big Brother watching you,'" Adams said. "No, Big Brother is protecting you."
This isn't the first time that Adams has invoked surveillance as the cure for crime concerns. Last January, his office issued a "Blueprint to End Gun Violence," and the mayor vowed that "from facial recognition technology to new tools that can spot those carrying weapons, we will use every available method to keep our people safe." But now Mayor Adams is openly belittling concerns about the surveillance state and urging city residents to learn to love Big Brother. At no time has he acknowledged that Big Brother might be a sketchy character, or that his former colleagues at the NYPD have an unfortunate history of abusing surveillance powers—a history that the city's own government acknowledges.
"The NYPD's surveillance of individuals and organizations perceived as enemies of the status quo dates back to early 1900s," notes a 2019 article published by the New York City Department of Records & Information Services. "At different periods, the focus was on anarchists, labor leaders, Nazi supporters, white supremacists, socialists, and communists."
Controversy over decades of surveillance led to litigation and the 1985 Handschu Guidelines, which created a mixed panel of civilians and police to oversee future surveillance.
In the post-9/11 period, those guidelines were relaxed as much mass surveillance focused on Muslims, coming to an end (supposedly) only in 2014 with the resolution of a lawsuit against the city. Still, in 2016, Senior United States District Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. disapproved the settlement in the case pending stronger safeguards after the revelation of "repeated, near-systemic violations by the NYPD Intelligence Bureau of a pertinent Handschu Guideline."
"It must be acknowledged that the history of the NYPD's adherence has been problematic at times," added Haight about years of continuous violations. "In the 2003 opinion reported at 288 F. Supp. 2d 411, the court had to deal with NYPD detention and questioning of anti-war demonstrators inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the newly enacted Modified Handschu Guidelines."
So, if Eric Adams wonders why people embrace George Orwell's warnings and fret, "Oh it's a boogeyman. It's Big Brother watching you," it's because the police have been watching all sorts of people for over a century, often in violation of even rules loosened for their convenience.
The surveillance technology championed by Adams offers new opportunities for abuse. For example, ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection system, relies on microphones scattered around the city to detect loud noises which its technology then identifies as either harmless or shooting-related, with various degrees of accuracy. You see where this is going, right? Microphones scattered around the city… .
"Though the microphones are as high as 100 feet above the ground, they have the ability to pick up intelligible conversations, which have been deemed admissible in court as part of several criminal cases around the country," Anthony Fisher wrote for Reason in 2015.
Earlier this month, emails obtained by Bloomberg revealed that ShotSpotter has been sharing the locations of its microphones with NYPD officials—something it said it wouldn't do. Police then have the potential to tap into those systems to listen in on "conversations in hushed tones and normal conversation inside a home through an open window or door if they occur close enough to a sensor."
The NYPD says it's not doing that, but it also said it would abide by the Handschu Guidelines.
The facial recognition technology also touted by Eric Adams was used in November to bar a woman from Madison Square Garden in New York City after the technology identified her as an attorney for a law firm that represents an opponent in a lawsuit. While that incident involved little more than pettiness by a private party, you don't have to wonder how the technology could be abused by a government; just contemplate its use by Chinese authorities in their ongoing experiments in high-tech dystopia.
"China's facial recognition system logs nearly every single citizen in the country, with a vast network of cameras across the country," Alfred Ng noted in a 2020 CNet article. "China's aggressive development and use of facial recognition offers a window into how a technology that can be both benign and beneficial—think your iPhone's Face ID—can also be twisted to enable a crackdown on actions that the average person may not even consider a crime."
Chinese officials may also believe, like Mayor Adams, that "Big Brother is protecting you." But Big Brother is "protecting" against things that upset Big Brother. Big Brother is certainly not prioritizing the concerns of people who don't want to be tracked, scrutinized, overheard, disarmed, judged, and penalized by intrusive officials whose standards differ from their own.
Adams may assume his own goodness, but "of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive," as C.S. Lewis warned us. "It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Ultimately, the very fact that Eric Adams, in the guise of Big Brother, wants to protect New Yorkers is all the more reason to tell him to get lost. A surveillance state is no less tyrannical, and perhaps even worse, when the snoops really believe in what they're doing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You want your smoking gun?
https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/elon-musk-slams-cisa-censorship-network
I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply
COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE________ http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Receipts up and down the line. Your federal government is funding huge censorship networks for partisan political purposes.
They even had the NSF fund university research into "fighting disinformation" that included grants to specifically target "populist communications" and to "combat populist politicians".
And... put on your tinfoil hat.... remember how I was pointing to weird articles in the spring and summer of 2020 that said things like "on election night it might look like Trump won in a landslide, but by the time the recounts are done on Friday,Biden will win in a landslide"? This, at a time that Trump was down 16 points in the polls?
Well... this article documents a change in the censorship consortium's definition of disinformation to include any questioning of mail in ballots.... in the summer before the 2020 election.
From the article:
"This speech control network also flagged popular populist-right YouTube channels, including Steven Crowder, BlazeTV, Judicial Watch, CDMedia, and even the GOP War Room, as “mis- and disinformation” spreaders."
So... there is your smoking gun. The federal government directed those "private corporations" to censor political speech. And only in the direction of suppressing republican and conservative voices.
Libertarians should have their pitchforks and torches out... and not just because we often get lumped in with the right.
Instead, our largest voice, Reason, is filled with people running to hide in the political left bushes.
Why?
Well.....
"Before receiving a $3 million government grant from the Biden Administration in 2021 after censoring the Biden Administration's political opposition in 2020, SIO was originally funded by private foundations such as Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the Omidyar Network, and the Charles Koch Foundation,"
SIO
Stanford Internet Observatory
They are a key player in the federal censorship regime.
I suppose you don't need to fight the censorship machine if you have a seat at the table when the targets are selected.
Reason is all in with the totalitarian globalist machine.
The publication is a gaslighting operation.
It's not here to advocate for liberty, it's here to signal who/what are the left's enemies and prevent relatively non partisan people from aiding opposition.
There is no principled philosophy here, just typical leftism wearing some degree of a mask.
Great point Nardz. When do you plan to murder them?
Sarc defends the methods his team uses in elections. Full denial of state censorship, illegal election rule changes, and coordinated actions with democrats to affect elections.
He stated if you think anything happened in 2020, you're a trump supporter. His blind ignorance is a feign to support the outcome blindly.
He's not. Nardz is a pussy. He probably doesn't even own a gun. He talks a lot like he's the reincarnation of John Brown ready to kick off the next Civil War, but he is just a pathetic keyboard warrior, that is all.
Thank God jeff showed back up. Sarc was spiraling without his attaboys.
Jeffy, we missed you yesterday when Shackford was defending sexually charged drag queen shows for kids.
I predict that at some point we'll read about some nutter being killed after going on a mass shooting at Planned Parenthood, a DNC convention, an immigration center or a public housing project, and Nardz will suddenly stop posting.
Personal attacks from sarc??? But he claims he doesn't do this. I for one am shocked.
“Before receiving a $3 million government grant from the Biden Administration in 2021 after censoring the Biden Administration’s political opposition in 2020, SIO was originally funded by private foundations such as Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the Omidyar Network, and the Charles Koch Foundation,“
And what is the first thing sarcasmic does upon reading all this? He decides to try to derail the conversation by trolling Nardz.
Jeff is delighted that sarcasmic is doing his job, and immediately joins in.
Man, if Sarc is doing that, it's really disappointing. I had to log in again on a new PC, and his comments on the charity article from Stossel a few days ago were actually pretty solid. I wish we could have *that* Sarc all the time. I still remember that guy from 5 or 6 years ago.
So who exactly contacts you to jump in and defend Reason, Lying Jeffy? Did they interrupt your vacation?
The best way to not be bothered by the left is to get rid of the left. Everything else is bullshit.
Oh, and I see that morbidly obese groomer faggot pedo Jeffy is awake after his holiday diabetic coma. That’s too bad. I was really hoping his appetite would have done him in this time.
Exactly. Part of the point of being a libertarian, particularly an anti-authoritarian libertarian such as myself, is to oppose censorship in all forms. This should piss off everyone, and might explain why the commentariat is so pissed with the editors here at Reason. As far as I'm concerned, "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything."
Part of the point of being a libertarian, particularly an anti-authoritarian libertarian such as myself, is to oppose censorship in all forms.
You have to define censorship here. I think of it as government force, but others say a church has no right to delete comments from Satanists on their meeting board. Need more detail.
I think we all know the answer here as this was a response to Cyto's comment.
Are you deliberately trying to provoke fights?
No, it's an honest question. When you say "censorship in all forms" I want to know what you mean.
And Cyto was discussing the collaboration between government and private entities online to censor information.
Do you know why I haven't muted you, even though you seem to have a thing for provoking fights and creating crazy comment cascades? It's because I think anything other than a spammer's ad here is worthwhile to read, even if once, even if to agree or ridicule.
Is this collaboration forced?
And again sarc defends fascist authoritarianism.
Sadly he probably is too dumb to understand this.
What role does government have in trying to censor citizens sarc? How do you think being okay with that is libertarian? Using government power and money to push government narratives.
This is why people call you a leftist now.
Not only that, but there are some (very limited) types of government censorship that even a libertarian can support IMO.
Should a military officer be legally allowed to post military secrets online publicly? ANY military secret? Forbidding this practice is a type of censorship.
And let's look at issues of copyright or IP generally. Some libertarians believes that there ought to be strong protections for IP, considering that it is a type of property. If I post a copyrighted work online without the author's permission, the government may legally force me to take it down. Is that censorship? Should it be permitted?
This absolute statement of "I'm opposed to censorship in all forms" is more of an emotional knee-jerk reaction in opposition to Team Blue, than a rational thoughtful examination of censorship in general. I will acknowledge that the sentiment is in the right direction when applied to government censorship anyway, but *Reason* should be more than just emotional sentiments, it should be rational analysis.
>Should a military officer be legally allowed to post military secrets online publicly? ANY military secret? Forbidding this practice is a type of censorship.
No, actually its not. To get access to classified information you must take on an affirmative duty to protect such information. An 'officer' (or, rather, since you're stuck in the 1820's and think non-officers don't count, officers and enlisted) formally takes on that duty as part of their profession. There's even paperwork to sign. Upon resigning their commission (assuming they're not retiring), they are also formally relieved of that duty.
Absent that, it actually is perfectly legal to publish classified information found, say, on a seat on a bus.
No. Also, show me the receipts where libertarians believe IP is property.
So the paperwork turns the censorship into non-censorship?
The government would be silencing the speech of the officer who wanted to post military secrets online. How is that not censorship?
No. Also, show me the receipts where libertarians believe IP is property.
Go ask the Objectivist crowd.
The paperwork is a voluntarily signed contract. Why would a supposed libertarian have a problem with that?
I didn’t re-up after four years in the Navy precisely because I realized I was not cut out for the military, with all its sirrin’, salutin’, and inspectin'. But I did my four years honorably because I honored my contract. That’s how contracts work.
The paperwork is a voluntarily signed contract. Why would a supposed libertarian have a problem with that?
I don't. But it is a contract that legalizes government censorship. Calling it non-censorship because "it's in the contract" is absurd.
If I sign an NDA with a company to work on a project, is that censorship?
What part of "voluntary" is beyond your comprehension? Yes, yes, I realize that's like asking everyone who didn't hear me to raise their hand, but it's appropriate.
it's really easy. free speech is all speech that is legal. any suppression of that legal speech is censorship. your examples are all illegal speech.
any suppression of that legal speech is censorship. your examples are all illegal speech.
Circular argument is circular.
So you admit that voluntary censorship is evil only when it is voluntary censorship of government information because it is censorship? Is that a circular definition?
It would be nice to have these discussions for once without Fatfuck’s disingenuous false equivalences.
Yes. Paying companies and feeding them fake Russian hacking stories are fine because they didn’t use a gun.
Youre describing fascism and seem okay with it.
but others say a church has no right to delete comments from Satanists on their meeting board.
The government strong-arming the church into doing so is the better analogy.
The "church of proggie lies" was Twitter and they happily complied with government censorship directives. Unacceptable.
Sarc will be here shortly complaining about you seeing this.
First thing he did was to try and derail everything by starting a fight with Nardz.
Sure. It’s fine for NYPD to snoop on you, but try and get information from them under the FOIA or other transparency laws.
Orwell was from the future.
Adam's Tammany Hallway Monitors won't stop until the squirrels in Central Park have smoke detectors and body cameras with Karen facial recognition tech.
Nope. He was definitely from the past. It's just that nothing changes. We'll still be dealing with this stuff a hundred years from now.
We didn’t have this problem 50 years ago.
The cancer was there but it hadn't matasticized into every part of government and society yet.
Fatfuck Jeffy is one of the tumors. Perhaps the fastest growing tumor of the bunch.
Depends what you mean by “problem.” I have no doubt that the desire for a surveillance state was there in all areas of the government 50 years ago, but simply lacked the technological infrastructure to fully realize it.
J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was involved in all kinds of illegal business. I wouldn't be surprised if he was leaning on newspapers and TV to censor news. The CIA stuck to undermining foreign governments and have moved on to undermining ours.
There was tremendous collusion with AT&T in reading all foreign telegrams.
You should read up on court decisions and wire tapping phones. A quick google found no articles, but my memory is courts first allowed it without warrant, then backtracked and only allowed recording phone numbers called as analogous to publicly visible addresses on an envelope, and finally Congress passed laws allowing wire taps. But I'm sure I have the details wrong.
Still argue Huxley was more accurate. Drugs and sex.
I see no reason the government wouldn't decide to just implement *several* the dystopian future novels...
Assuming 'Huxley' points to his most famous work, it's set 5.5 centuries into the future relative to 1984.
Orwell was an optimist.
He really wasn't.
1984 wasn't a prediction of the future, but just an expansion of *what he saw happening* in Spain, and elsewhere, during his time there.
If you can somehow do it 99% transparently so media and public advocates and citizenship groups can prevent it from morphing into an Orwellian State, might make us all safer. Just assuming something will always turn out bad because that's happened in the past is stupid. Adams of course, wants no transparency and wants to go straight to Orwellian. He's also sees President Adams in his future. Very long odds but they said that when Trump announced in 2016.
That won't make us safer either - because then private actors will just use that information against you.
The best surveillance is limited to only the stuff you directly own. Ie, a gapped system to record your home or business. Public surveillance has prevented nothing and 'solved' precious few crimes after the fact. Especially considering its cost.
The best 'public surveillance' network out there would be to spend the money not on camera networks but on a handful more cops to stand on street corners.
"'At different periods, the focus was on anarchists, labor leaders, Nazi supporters, white supremacists, socialists, and communists."'
You forgot to mention Puerto Ricans, Blacks, and, most especially, the Irish. I guess now, in the spirit of wokeism, they are becoming more, er, "inclusive?"
Never forget that the “public” that the police serve and protect is everyone else. It’s not you. It’s not anyone they interact with. Those people serve the police. Those people are all guilty and have something coming to them. They are all to be treated with contempt and scorn. That is how the police serve the public, who is everyone except you.
Do you whip it out every time a cop is shot?
Hey Fucknut. So you know you're on permamute now. That means any replies to my comments will not be read by me. All you're doing is virtue signaling to the Canadian Cunt and the rest of your muted girlfriends. Carry on.
Do you whip it out when a cop dies? Would you take your child into an area with high crimes rates and still say all cops are bad?
POST THE LIST!
I finally rejoined ML. But we know sarc doesn't actually mute. He needs to feed his victim persona.
He truly believes he's hurt you somehow. He's such an attention whore he couldn't imagine anything worse.
I'm also pretty sure he thinks it works like a magic censorship button that stops your posts for everyone.
If he mutes me, that's fine. I really don't care who mutes me as I can still read his/her comments. It not my ego trip that needs the mute button and then the need to boast about muting someone.
It's not ego. It's clutter. The people I mute add nothing to the conversation. It's all personal attacks of some sort. Granted you post plenty of those when you're trying to impress the trolls, but the rest of the time your comments have thought behind them. That's why you're not on mute.
I figure a comment from anyone not a spammer trying to sell me something or get me to earn money fast is worth reading, even if to comment on and ridicule. That's not clutter.
I figure that when liars deliberately take things out of context, insist offhand comments are heartfelt, or just plain make shit up, that they're nothing but pieces of shit floating the toilet that need to be flushed. Or in this case muted.
Ideas!
"insist offhand comments are heartfelt"
Like this?
sarcasmic 10 hours ago
Screw being humane. Whip out a machete and swipe off the head, then laugh as it runs around with blood squirting up into the air before landing on the heads of screaming children. I’d register to vote for that guy.
And yes I said "floating" on purpose. Floaters accompany gas, and these people really stink. Nobody crop seeding the hallway with SBD's is shitting sinkers. They're all floaters.
Out of context by posting the entire comment and link?
Lol. Projection yet again buddy?
Why don't you remute me? I've double- and triple-dog dared you, and you still won't. It hurts.
So now I'm double dog daring you to NOT mute me. You haven't got the guts to NOT mute me. You're a wimp and a coward.
You're too interesting. Sorry.
If you want me to mute you, just do what they do.
Use the word "you" in every sentence in every reply to my posts. Talk about me instead of whatever the topic might be. Accuse me of making some argument I never made. Bring up things I may or may not have said that at best have some tangential reference to whatever bullshit you're trying accuse me of, and then finish with a snide remark.
Or you can stay interesting.
The irony of this post. Sarc talking about other people talking about him.
Of course, you will deny all of the DONE clauses, you will deny I have ever called you a liar, and you will deny this is a snide remark, because you are an asshole, a liar, and a clown.
And you still haven't got the guts to NOT mute me.
Yet you continue to, when not being a dick, post comments where I end up learning something. You can be pretty thoughtful at times. So I'm not going to mute you. Deal. Bitch.
Unless you want to degenerate into an attack dog. But we have plenty of those.
Couple questions. No need to answer. They're rhetorical.
Have you ever considered that people who disagree with you have good intentions?
Could people with the same goals radically differ in the means of achieving them?
Why does Coca-Cola exist when Pepsi is clearly better?
And sarc continues to talk to others woth "you" as he complains of others talking about him with "you."
Hypocrisy is his one true strength.
So from now forward if you ask me to mute you I will take it as a vain attempt to draw out compliments from me, because you're so damn insecure that me calling you interesting makes a difference in your day.
I'm not asking you, or even daring you, to mute me; I'm double- and triple-dog daring you to NOT mute me.
Typical sarcasm response to what I didn't write. Can't you even read?
You're like Dr Seuss on shrooms. But not fun or funny.
Well, not fun or funny seems to be excuse enough. What are you waiting for, another strawman to pop into your bobble head?
Sarc just described what he does with everyone else. Stupid drunken piece of shit that he is.
Jesse, he will never really mute you. Sarc has an ersatz homosexual fascination with you. He clearly defines his existence through his antagonism of you. Kind of like the Joker with Batman……
https://bigother.com/2010/04/14/reading-frank-millers-batman-the-dark-knight-returns-part-5/batman-darling-2/
I wonder how long before Sarc had a website with an enemies list. Like Hihn had, before he dropped dead. I had four entires in that list. Which was a source of pride.
Bidens EO to end public charge analysis for green cards is in effect.
https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/dhss-public-charge-final-rule-goes-into-effect-on-dec-23
Multiple studies from national academy of science (2017) to CIS show immigrants using welfare at mich higher levels than born citizens. Green card laws require visa holders to not be a public charge. That is no longer the case.
To libertarians who claim open borders is not a welfare issue, you are wrong. It is a welfare issue. Of you want others to support open borders, end the welfare state.
I mean, philosophically, I *do* support open borders, but I'm also enough of an engineer to recognize that order of operations is important, and dumping 97% of the FedGov is a critical first step. At which point I suspect there will be fewer people wanting to immigrate. Or hell, maybe we'd get even more, because Libertopia should be pretty productive and wealthy.
And you don't even really have to be an engineer or order of operations specialist to recognize the fiscal moral hazard that is "free shit to green card holders".
Multiple studies from national academy of science (2017)
I'm willing to bet you didn't even read this study, because this statement
immigrants using welfare at mich higher levels than born citizens.
is absurd, and not supported by that NAS study. The NAS study was way more detailed than just looking at "how much welfare benefits they consume". The study looked at the entirety of the fiscal impact of native-born citizens vs. immigrants, taking into account both taxes and spending. Their main finding in this area was that, at similar levels of educational attainment, immigrants have a greater net positive fiscal impact than native-born citizens do. That is because both groups pay about the same in taxes, but immigrants don't qualify for as much welfare as native-born citizens do.
To libertarians who claim open borders is not a welfare issue, you are wrong. It is a welfare issue.
Then why is it that your biggest complaints about welfare are always about when it's the immigrants taking it? Why is it then that you propagate LIES like the one above, that immigrants take more welfare than native-born citizens? Why is it then that your team always points to these sloppy studies that dishonestly frame the welfare issue to scapegoat immigrants as the bad guys, without doing the proper comparisons or analyses to get a more accurate picture?
Immigrants are amazing. They simultaneously steal welfare without contributing to society and steal jobs from hardworking Americans. At the same time!
It is quite possible, given the numbers, for both to happen at the same time.
No it's not. Because working is contributing to society.
OK, smartass, one immigrant decides to sit on his ass and collect welfare while another opens a business and effectively has a license to print money for what he's selling, and yet a third works cheaper than the locals and takes a job away from them. All three can happen at the same time because of the number of individuals out there.
Ever go up to an Italian dude and ask "WOP's up? How's your dago?"
Your arguments are the same ones that were no doubt used against your grandparents or the grandparents of people close to you.
You know the origin of minimum wage? Blacks were coming up from the South after the Civil War, and they were willing to work for less than good white folk. So they passed a price floor on labor. No one could work for less than what a white person would accept as a living wage. That meant those inexperienced black people couldn't find work.
There are no profound arguments against immigration. Just recycled crap that is continually proved wrong by history.
What are you smoking, because inquiring minds do want to know. Did you even bother to read my comment? All I said is that immigrants can be a lot of things. Some can drain, and some can contribute. That's life. Likewise for those born here. I can name one drain right now; want a mirror?
So you have no real counter to his argument. Just attacks casting aspersions that he’s racist. Your usual MO, soon to be followed by more whining and crying from you about being personally attacked.
Just go back to your refrigerator box in that piss soaked alley and pass out. It’s the one thing you’re good at.
Despite what talk radio says, most illegal immigrants do not slurp up welfare like a kid with a Big Gulp. Most of them work. When they're not getting paid under the table they're paying taxes. If they're paying taxes illegally then their payroll taxes aren't adding to their future Social Security benefits. If they buy stuff they pay sales tax. If they live somewhere they're (indirectly) paying property taxes.
Yup, no one escapes the tax man, whether it's income taxes, FICA taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., etc.
Seriously. People talk as if immigrants take and take and take without contributing to the system. Can't count how many times I've heard the term "anchor baby" as if every single man, woman and child that arrives in this country plops out a kid as soon as they cross the border. How do immigrants sans kids get welfare? They don't. They work. And they work a heck of a lot harder than anyone born here.
How do immigrants sans kids get welfare? They don’t.
For the most part they don't. But you also have to look at how some of these right-wing studies define "welfare". Some of them define it so broadly as to insinuate that every single immigrant AS WELL AS native-born citizen is "on welfare". For example, treating police protection as "welfare". Because new immigrants tend to live in poorer communities, with a greater police presence, they "consume more welfare". AHA TAKE THAT YOU OPEN BORDERS FANATICS, IMMIGRANTS ARE STEALING WELFARE
Those goalposts have legs.
Man. You two have the strawman arguments and narratives down.
You two have the strawman arguments and narratives down.
And the funniest part is, it couldn't be more obviously oxymoronic or self-refuting. The tax code is the tax code and it's pretty clearly and progressive. The people who've made it progressive acknowledge that it's progressive and are explicit that it should be more so. Further, it should be more so explicitly to perform in the manner in which chemtard and sarc try and pretend it doesn't. Further still, the people who argue against handouts to immigrants are among the most steady opponents to said progressive taxation, regardless of immigration status.
The only way it could get more retarded is if sarcasmic and chemjeff started sucking off each other and immigrant police officers to prove how not gay, but pro-immigrant and anti-cop they are.
The tax code is the tax code and it’s pretty clearly and progressive.
With regards to income tax, yes.
But what about all the regressive taxes? Sales tax. Sin taxes like booze or smokes or legal weed? If you have a roof someone is paying property taxes directly or through the landlord. In Maine we have a snack tax that targets Snickers but not Twix because the latter contains flour.
The bottom part of your income gets taxed a lot. And if that's all you got then you're getting taxed a lot. The middle part is mostly left alone. Then when you make a lot more the progressive income taxes kick in, but by then you can afford an accountant.
Gas tax, excise tax, utility fees.
All those things apply to everyone, but don't affect the rich because it's a small percentage of their income. But those on the bottom who have the least are paying out the nose as a percentage of income.
Tariffs and payroll taxes. Illegals pay all of that shit too. Just like every other poor person. Except they don't get the bennies that citizens get.
But what about all the regressive taxes? Sales tax. … Gas tax, excise tax, utility fees.
“It’s not the gas that’s fueling the economy. It’s the $0.05/gal. that’s disproportionately paid by poor people at the same rate that is.” -sarcasmic
The flourish of mental gymnastics in defense of nothing but underlying ego… of course you would deny it publicly, but you really are sucking a cop’s dick right now aren’t you?
I mean seriously, you're more dementia-addled and out of touch than the "That's not how any of this works!" old ladies in the insurance commercial. Are you really trying to say that gas tax makes up more of the economy than income? That immigrants who pay utility fees don't derive any benefit from those fees? What are you trying to achieve besides making yourself look retarded and anyone associated with your cause look stupid by agreeing with you?
Know what? Never mind. Have another Corona.
I didn't read a word after "sucking."
Sarc’s already whining and crying again. Worse than a colicky baby. Which would probably make better comments than Sarc or Fatfuck. Although Fatfuck would be busy grooming the baby for sexytime.
Here is the NAS study in case anyone wants to read it for themselves:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration
It is very long and full of big words. Which is why I'm quite certain that Jesse didn't read it.
The results I am referring to are on tables starting on p. 440. I'll just repeat it for emphasis, because it irritates Jesse so much:
At similar levels of educational attainment, immigrants have a greater net positive fiscal impact than native-born citizens do. That is chiefly because both groups pay about the same in taxes, but immigrants are barred by law from using some of the welfare benefits that native-born citizens have access to.
So what this means, is if you really wanted less welfare spending, based on current law and current economic conditions, you should be advocating for MORE IMMIGRATION, not less.
Funny how those who claim to be opposed to more immigration "because of welfare" never seem to grasp this point. It is because to them, immigrants are the welfare scapegoats.
I just love the tainted propaganda in study text... Seen it many many times. Here's the number, but conclusion is opposite what the number say...
That is the podium you're standing on. (leftard propaganda).
Pull the health and welfare numbers on any office by citizenship status. They all show overwhelmingly that expenses are routed to immigrants many to the tune of being MORE than citizens even though citizens run a rate of 80%+ of the population.
Where are your figures?
I once pulled them directly from a benefits database.
Too lazy to do that again -- but here's a study that puts your study to shame.
https://cis.org/Camarota/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-NativeBorn-Households
Right. So even assuming that the data is completely legit, this study:
- only examines welfare costs, and does not examine taxes paid
- focuses on households and not individuals, so the household with 5 kids going to public school is treated as equivalent to the household with no kids living at home
- frames the issue in terms of percentage of households instead of in terms of absolute numbers
- does not meaningfully address the dependence on educational attainment, which is far more important when it comes to welfare and work than immigration status is
EVEN STILL, even using their numbers:
About 9 million households headed by immigrants consume some form of welfare.
About 35 million households headed by native-born citizens consume some form of welfare.
So yeah, let's scapegoat the 9 million immigrant-headed households for all of the welfare problems, while saying nothing about the 4x larger number of native-born households consuming welfare, and then try to gaslight everyone into thinking "yeah, I'm just really really concerned about the fiscal costs here". LOL
Poking fun at the overwhelming evidence doesn't constitute a case.
U lose.
Not only on the numbers but also the very FACT that the US Constitution (the people) never authorized federal welfare anywhere (it's treasonous) but it did specially give it the job to prevent invasion. Immigrants also vote overwhelmingly for the Nazi-Party.
Import Non-American, get non-America...
It really is as simple as that.
I should add; American principles can persist in immigrants (thus the immigration process - well needed) but the numbers today show the exact opposite happening. Those who want to conquer the USA for their Nazi-Empire make up more of the immigration than those who actually WANT a USA instead of want to STEAL and CONQUER the USA...
Immigration policy should insist those who support the conquer and consume ideology should never be granted entry. Just as the criminals in jail who cannot give-up their selfish criminal mentalities shouldn't be released.
Summary; Immigrants are people. They can either believe in being just/honest/fair or they don't. The numbers say MORE vetting needs to happen. But we can throw out the very notion that those who BREAK THE LAW of the land are somehow entitled to keep breaking laws and stealing from those icky people.
And we’re talking about immigrants here, right? Not illegals? Which are absolutely a different category. Although leftists like Fatfuck and Sarc try to lie and group them together
I even gave him the two studies to do so. But he persists.
lol I got my analysis from one of the studies *that you cited*
it's not my fault that you didn't even read your own study
Funny how you cherry-picked, "At similar levels of educational attainment".... Which requires MORE vetting to even make a case out of.
Their main finding in this area was that, at similar levels of educational attainment, immigrants have a greater net positive fiscal impact than native-born citizens do.
And the obvious question is what is the average level of educational attainment of illegal immigrants? Guess what? It's lower than the average level of educational attainment of the native population. And educational attainment is a much stronger predictor of fiscal impact than native/immigrant status.
Are you too stupid to understand this? Or do you think we're too stupid to catch your dishonesty?
It is true that people at lower levels of educational attainment tend to be a net negative in their fiscal impact. But immigrants are *less negative* than the native-born. That is because, again, both groups tend to pay about the same amount in taxes, but immigrants are barred from accessing some welfare programs that native-born citizens do have access to.
You mean, like I just said above?
https://reason.com/2022/12/30/new-york-city-mayor-eric-adams-wants-you-to-love-big-brother/?comments=true#comment-9855683
– does not meaningfully address the dependence on educational attainment, which is far more important when it comes to welfare and work than immigration status is
I will accept your apology now.
Gender affirming surgery and treatment has the same effect on transgender as a placebo.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/gender-affirming-care-model-is-built-on-sand/
From your own link:
Even your own links are stating that you can't just put everyone into one of two boxes of "stereotypical male" and "stereotypical female". Some people just don't fit in either box. Your team needs to come up with some solutions for supporting these kids who don't fit into either box with something other than yelling at them "you're mentally ill" or "learn how to be a real man/real woman". Do you want to bring back the 1950s with intense social pressure for everyone to conform to some stereotypical gender norm?
This gender shit is just the latest fad. A decade or two ago all the kids wanted to be bi. You weren't cool unless you were bi. Now you have to be confused to be cool. I miss it when it was just stoners and jocks.
Your democrats are really working hard to force all this tranny bullshit on everyone.
Do you know what it takes to get published?
The study literally says actions that permanently alter someone through drugs and surgery, two things you promote, are the same as a placebo. Instead of focusing on this you focus on the narrative. Why?
It is a mental issue. Yet the gender care industry you support will transition children within 2 weeks of their first appointment. This is why European countries are pulling back.
Your only interest here is denying the scientific results to promote your narrative. Why?
Those you are attacking admit this is a mental issue. But lying to children about it does not help them either. We don’t treat schizophrenia by saying yes we see the other people. Yet you would take that tactic here. We don’t tell the anorexic they are over weight. Yet you push that tactic here.
Your interest is not in protecting or helping children, but in supporting your narrative. You selected the one line not backed by the study. Just the narrative needed to get published. The study did not focus on the spectrum but results of care. Yet your focus was on the narrative around the study. Lol.
Do you know what it takes to get published?
lol at the guy who now wants to point to the seriousness and the sanctity of the academic publishing process, when he dismissed and ignored every academic article that was published that went against his narratives about COVID and the vaccines
"MY academic studies are correct and worth taken seriously. See, they are academic and rigorous, and look how hard it is to get published!"
"YOUR academic studies are full of lies and written by frauds and propagandists only interested in getting the next research grant. It's all bullshit!"
And I'm not falling for your crap, you lie as easily as water flowing downhill. It is a sight to behold to see you literally make up all sorts of shit about people and to state it so bluntly as if it were fact. Do you work for Posobiec?
So, Jesse, what are you going to do to be more accepting of gender non-conformity? Is it your contention that every person who is not stereotypically male or stereotypically female is "mentally ill"?
Your response here shows you didnt even bother reading my response.
Is that because it is baseless idiocy?
Did the study actually study a gender spectrum, or the outcome of gender affirming procedures. You latched onto a baseless statement put in the study to not offend the publishers while ignoring the actual purpose of the study. Because you have no interest beyond pushing a narrative.
Youre a joke here jeff. Youre not an intellectual. That’s why you so readily latch onto subjectivity over objectivity while pushing post modernism.
I give two shits if a girl plays sports or climbs trees. I give two shits if a boy wears dresses. You require them to mutilate themselves pushing a sex based conformity while I say do what the fuck you want but your biological truth is the truth.
Youre literally the one supporting trait based gender theory through actions and choices. That is the irony here.
Why should I take your study seriously, when you don't take my studies seriously?
And what are you going to do to support gender non-conforming kids?
“So, Jesse, what are you going to do to be more accepting of gender non-conformity? Is it your contention that every person who is not stereotypically male or stereotypically female is “mentally ill”?”
As opposed to what?
Is there a dispute about presenting as more masculine or more feminine?
I wasn't aware that there was some huge oppression against women wearing Carhartts and work boots or men wearing makeup and a skirt.
The area of conflict has been "you must use Xe and Xer when you refer to me" and men who want to present as women participating in women's sports and of late... men in drag twerking for elementary school kids and doing permanent physical transformations prior to puberty.
The biggest conflict has sprung from a talking point that became a principle. "Trans women are women". It started as "don't diminish me by saying that I am not a real woman". In other words, don't break the illusion. It seemed reasonably fair at the time. No need to hang a lampshade on it every time.
But at some point a new generation came through and transformed that to be a religious miracle akin to the catholic transubstantiation, in which they believe that wine literally becomes the blood of christ, not a metaphor. So now they will argue on national television and be treated with all seriousness when they say that there is no difference between a trans man and a biological male at birth. Eliot Page is a man just like any other man - not in dignity, or legality or in how he should be treated... he is a male in the same sense that Robby is a male. Yet, he is a person who menstruates. So men can menstruate. And they will rail at your bigotry if you suggest that biological females are the only ones who menstruate, regardless of how they present themselves.
We are at a very weird place with all of this stuff.
Don Lemon of all people was arguing that women's soccer is not as entertaining as men's soccer, hence the wage gap. His female panel members were aghast. They insisted that women were as good as men at soccer.... better even, here in America.
Lemon sounded distinctly like some of our right wing posters when he said "the US women's team, the world champions, lost to a team of 15 year old boys
That is through the looking glass.
I wasn’t aware that there was some huge oppression against women wearing Carhartts and work boots or men wearing makeup and a skirt.
Umm, I know you're not new here, so I guess you must have missed all of those comments by many of the conservatives around here who automatically assume that if a biological man is dressed in drag, that automatically means that the man is a pervert and a pedophile and should be kept far away from children.
Ah, another strawman.
Hate to be pedantic here, but a strawman requires two things: An argument someone didn't make, and a retort. In this case he's voicing an argument that I have seen people make, and he doesn't argue against it.
"a strawman requires two things: An argument someone didn’t make, and a retort"
No, you fantastic fucking retard. A strawman is an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. No retort necessary.
He continues to combine strawman with ad hominem. The latter requiring one to refute an argument based on a statement about the person.
He is an idiot.
Cite? No. It was a strawman.
In response to the swaths of grey, yes I've gotten it wrong. The difference is that I point it out like a civilized human being.
You are wrong here. You've gotten it wrong for most of your posts.
Cite one person saying what jeff claims.
Also funny how again jeff freely declares who is conservative but don't call him or you leftists.
So you peeked.
So much for “permamute “.
Too funny.
lol read anything posted by Nardz on the subject.
Fatfuck has to lie. It’s all he’s got. He also denies the fact he’s scorchingly far left.
.. and should be kept far away from children.
Why do you want so badly to corrupt children?
Case in point.
No it isnt.
Do you swear , drink, or fight in front of children? Do you let them watch horror movies?
If not, why not?
So if a child sees a biological man dressed in drag, that man is "corrupting" the child. Got it.
No, not a strawman at all.
Yeah Fatfuck. That’s the same as taking them to see drag shows where sex acts are simulated.
Jeff has admitted he has no kids. Who would marry that fat fuck?
But it seems to be those pushing hardest to transition and groom kids are the childless.
Jesse admitted he runs a gay conversion therapy ministry. So we know why he is so committed to this culture war - he wants to drum up more business!
Were you hoping I wouldn't actually read your link? It pretty much refutes you and your cherrypicked takeaways.
Even worse I'm going to post the entire entry here, unedited, with the important bits highlighted.
man1, n. (pi. men). Human being; (in indefi- nite or general application) person, as any, no, m., some, few, men ; the human race, asm. wants but little here below, inner, outer, m., spiritual, material, parts of m., (facet.) interior, esp. stomach, exterior, of m.; new, old, m.; adult male. opp. to woman, boy, or both ; m, db boy (adv.), from boyhood upwards ; (as impatient or lively vocative) nonsense, m.!, hurry up, m. (alive) ! ; (jocular or endearing) little m., young boy ; one, as what can a m. do in such a case ? ; individual (male) person, as in. for m., between in. & m., 5/- per m. ; as a in., viewed simply in regard to his personal character ; if you want noise, he is your m. (can supply you) ; be one's own in., be free to act, (also) be in full possession of one's faculties, senses, &c; every m. jack1 ; (in comb., denoting one who follows profession, uses implement:, trades in article, &c.) clergy in., postm., brake-m.,penm., rag-&-bone-m.; best1, handy, m.; m. eminently endowed with manly qualities, as be a, play the, m.; husband, in m. &wife ; (Hist.) vassal ; manservant, valet ; work- man, as the masters locked out the men; (usu. pi.) soldiers, esp. common soldiers; piece in game of chess, draughts, &c; m. of straw; (in comb.) ship, as m.-of-war, armed ship belonging to a country's navy, india??i., merchants*. ;
To long for a single post, so part 2 to follow.
m. of the world; m. Friday, servile follower, factotum, (name given by Robinson Crusoe to his servant); m.-at-arms, soldier, esp. heavy-armed & mounted; m.- (male) child; m.-eater, cannibal, biting horse, m.-eating shark or tiger; m.-handle, move by force of man alone, (slang) handle roughly; m.-/ote, opening in floor. sewer, for m. to pass through; m. in the moon, semblance of m. in moon, esp. a type of imaginary person; i.-milliner; manslaughter, slaughter of human beings, (Law) criminal homicide without malice aforethought; m.-trap (for catching men, esp. trespassers). Hence man-less a. (com.-Teut.: OE & Du. man, G mann) man2, v.t. Furnish (fort, ship, &c.) with men for service or defence; (Naut.) place men at (part of ship); fill (post); fortify spirits or courage of (esp. oneself).
It couldn't be clearer that outside of uses like "manning a ship" or reference to humanity as a whole, "man" meant "male". In fact it says exactly that.
Always read Jeff's links folks. If they're not woke agitprop, they almost always refute him.
How the hell did these get stuck up here? Reposting below.
And this entire issue is just one of semantics. The right-wingers around here want the terms "male" and "man" both to refer exclusively to someone born with the XY chromosome (and similarly for women). They ignore that there is a difference between biological sex, and social constructions of gender.
So I simply ask, what is the word that you want to use to refer to "a person born with the XY chromosome but who adopts the social habits and customs traditionally associated with a person born with the XX chromosome"? What is the word you want to use to refer to that person? Is this person a "man" even though, for all intents and purposes, the person acts and behaves as a "woman"? Is this person a "woman" even though the person has the XY chromosome? What is the word you want to use here?
There is a difference when its convenient for there to be a difference - such as right here where you're using the motte-and-bailey technique to deflect criticism.
And there is no difference when the transgender are claiming its 'phobic to not be attracted to them because ladydick isn't dick because the person says they're not a man. Or how lesbians are expected to have sex with transwomen simply because a dude put on a dress and changed pronouns.
"The right-wingers around here want the terms “male” and “man” both to refer exclusively to someone born with the XY chromosome (and similarly for women)."
Words have actual definitions, and until five years ago for you Woke, and even now for the rest of the English speaking world, “male” and “man” both to refer exclusively to someone born with the XY chromosome.
Just because a subset of mentally ill, their enablers and a few perverts, decided that they don't, doesn't make everyone else wrong (or even conservative).
Is that so.
Here is the Oxford English Dictionary from 1919.
https://archive.org/details/con00ciseoxforddicfowlrich/page/497/mode/1up?view=theater
There are a whole lot of definitions of "man" in this dictionary. Only one of the definitions here refers to biological male-ness. One that stands out is the definition of "man" that reads: "eminently endowed with manly qualities". What quality constitutes "manly"? Well, from the same dictionary: "Having a man's courage, virtues, frankness, &c." (Quite sexist - as if women can't have courage or virtues??) In other words, one definition of a "man", in 1919 British English, meant someone who conformed to the social expectations of a man at the time, as in being virtuous and courageous.
So no, you are wrong, the definition of both "man" and "woman" have never *exclusively* referred to biological chromosomes.
Don't quit your day job just yet, Jeffy.
Were you hoping I wouldn’t actually read your link? It pretty much refutes you and your cherrypicked takeaways.
Even worse I’m going to post the entire entry here, unedited, with the important bits highlighted.
man1, n. (pi. men). Human being; (in indefi- nite or general application) person, as any, no, m., some, few, men ; the human race, asm. wants but little here below, inner, outer, m., spiritual, material, parts of m., (facet.) interior, esp. stomach, exterior, of m.; new, old, m.; adult male. opp. to woman, boy, or both ; m, db boy (adv.), from boyhood upwards ; (as impatient or lively vocative) nonsense, m.!, hurry up, m. (alive) ! ; (jocular or endearing) little m., young boy ; one, as what can a m. do in such a case ? ; individual (male) person, as in. for m., between in. & m., 5/- per m. ; as a in., viewed simply in regard to his personal character ; if you want noise, he is your m. (can supply you) ; be one’s own in., be free to act, (also) be in full possession of one’s faculties, senses, &c; every m. jack1 ; (in comb., denoting one who follows profession, uses implement:, trades in article, &c.) clergy in., postm., brake-m.,penm., rag-&-bone-m.; best1, handy, m.; m. eminently endowed with manly qualities, as be a, play the, m.; husband, in m. &wife ; (Hist.) vassal ; manservant, valet ; work- man, as the masters locked out the men; (usu. pi.) soldiers, esp. common soldiers; piece in game of chess, draughts, &c; m. of straw; (in comb.) ship, as m.-of-war, armed ship belonging to a country’s navy, india??i., merchants*. ;
To long for a single post, so part 2 to follow.
m. of the world; m. Friday, servile follower, factotum, (name given by Robinson Crusoe to his servant); m.-at-arms, soldier, esp. heavy-armed & mounted; m.- (male) child; m.-eater, cannibal, biting horse, m.-eating shark or tiger; m.-handle, move by force of man alone, (slang) handle roughly; m.-/ote, opening in floor. sewer, for m. to pass through; m. in the moon, semblance of m. in moon, esp. a type of imaginary person; i.-milliner; manslaughter, slaughter of human beings, (Law) criminal homicide without malice aforethought; m.-trap (for catching men, esp. trespassers). Hence man-less a. (com.-Teut.: OE & Du. man, G mann) man2, v.t. Furnish (fort, ship, &c.) with men for service or defence; (Naut.) place men at (part of ship); fill (post); fortify spirits or courage of (esp. oneself).
It couldn’t be clearer that outside of uses like “manning a ship” or reference to humanity as a whole, “man” meant “male”. In fact it says exactly that.
Always read Jeff’s links folks. If they’re not woke agitprop, they almost always refute him.
But that's not refuting anything that I said. It does refute what you said.
You wrote:
Words have actual definitions, and until five years ago for you Woke, and even now for the rest of the English speaking world, “male” and “man” both to refer exclusively to someone born with the XY chromosome.
And I showed, from a 1919 Oxford English dictionary, that the word "man" ALSO referred to someone who was "eminently endowed with manly qualities", i.e., someone who adopted the social expectations traditionally associated with the male gender.
So the definition of "man" has never EXCLUSIVELY been about biology. It has ALSO incorporated a definition associated with the social norms and roles that men are expected to fulfill, which are independent of the biology involved. So even all the way back in 1919, according to proper British English, a person who was observed to be "eminently endowed with manly qualities" was properly labeled a "man", regardless of biology.
OK, twit, here's the other definition that you failed to post from that exact same dictionary.
wo'man (woo-), n. (pi. wo'men^v. wi-), & v.t. Adult human female (every w. is to him a lady; w.'s or xcomen's rights, position of legal equa- lity with men demanded for women ; there 's a to. in it, way of accounting for man's inexplic- able conduct ; w. with a past, with some scan- dal attaching to her past life ; w. of the world, experienced in society, not raw & innocent ; play the w., weep or show fear ; make an hon- est w. of, marry after seducing; tied to w.'s apron-strings, controlled like child by her; single w., spinster; the scarlet w.; wise1^.); (without article) the average or typical w., the female sex, any w., (how does w. differ from man ?; man born of w., mortal man ; is an ex- cellent thing in w.; w.'s wit, instinctive in- sight or resource ; w.'s reason l ; O TV., in apo- strophes) ; queen's or great lady's female at- tendant, lady in waiting, (archaic ; sent one of her row. to ask) ; man with feminine character- istics (is a iv. in tenderness ; the old ww. in the cabinet ; all the old ww. of both sexes) ; the fe- minine emotions (all thew. in her rose in rebel- lion ; stirred the w. in him ; has much of the w. in his composition) ; (attrib.) female (w. doctor, friend, counsellor ; councillor ; w. suffrage, ex- tension or possession of political suffrage to or by ww.) ; (as suf.: chiefly in terms correl. to compounds in -man) w. concerned or dealing or skilful with (country w., shopw., horsew., churchw., chairw., ferry w., applew., needlew., &c; also by close comb, with adj., as gen- tletv.); w.-hater, misogynist ; womankind, ww. (one's w.-k. or ww.-k., the ww. of one's family) ; womenfolk, ww., one's womankind ; hence wo'manHOOD n., wo'manLESS, wo'man-like, aa. (Vb) make behave like a w., cause to weep &c.; address as ' w.\ 'my good w.', &c., speak of as 'w.' (not 'lady'). IOE wifman (wife, man) i.e. woman person]
And so this is what's going to happen next.
You are going to say something along the lines of, "But we all can read what you say, and that's not at all what the dictionary says." Even though that is what the dictionary says. Because you are going to gaslight on your way to "declaring victory". Then you will bring up some other tangential issue, or move the goalposts, or otherwise throw sand in the air to obfuscate the discussion. Then you will scream and yell and get hysterical about me supporting raping children or something, and then conclude by calling me a Nazi.
It clearly fucking says in black and white that "m.; adult male. opp. to woman" and "individual (male) person".
And as ITL points out it defines woman mentioned in the definition as "Adult human female".
You know what it doesn't say, you gaslighting troll? "m. person of female sex who identifies as a man", or "w. person of male sex who identifies as a woman".
No matter how you try and twist, lawyer and pettyfog, it clearly identifies "Man" with "Male", and says the complete opposite of what you are claiming it does.
And I call you a Nazi because you are a Nazi. An actual Nazi.
You push economic corporatism, Nazi race theories warmed up as CRT, hate
JewsIsraelis, push Aktion T4 programs like late-term abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, you argue for censorship, you advocate wars... In fact I'm hard pressed to think of a single thing you advocate that isn't Nazi. Even your advocacy of homosexuality and crossdressing was popular in Nazi circles until the Night of the Long Knives.It isnt semantics dumbfuck. It is a realization of biology. You hide behind a corruption of both science and corruption of language for your narrative. Youre a joke here jeff.
There is no biological imperative for men to wear suits and ties at formal events.
There is no biological imperative for women to wear lipstick and mascara.
Try again.
The wearing of red by women has a biological effect on men.
Lipstick has many meanings.
https://axiologybeauty.com/blogs/our-blog/royalty-prostitutes-witches-movie-stars-the-history-of-red-lipstick
But you've made one for the pig you're puting it on.
There is no biological imperative for someone to rationaly believe they’re the other gender.
Case closed.
The right-wingers around here want the terms “male” and “man” both to refer exclusively to someone born with the XY chromosome (and similarly for women). They ignore that there is a difference between biological sex, and social constructions of gender.
Fuck off dude. That's not political.
I'm fond of saying "You can't turn an X into a Y" when it comes to surgeries for confused people. And I'm no conservative.
So I simply ask, what is the word that you want to use to refer to “a person born with the XY chromosome but who adopts the social habits and customs traditionally associated with a person born with the XX chromosome”?
Fairy?
What is the word you want to use to refer to that person?
Fairy.
Is this person a “man” even though, for all intents and purposes, the person acts and behaves as a “woman”?
Yes.
Is this person a “woman” even though the person has the XY chromosome?
Nope.
What is the word you want to use here?
Bollocks.
So you want to use a demeaning term to describe this person? I would prefer not to use a demeaning term.
Demeaning is in the eye of the beholder. Some of them like to be called fairies.
Translation: Fatfuck has no counter argument. So he whines about trivia.
Jeff thinks it is better to convince the girl who enjoys climbing trees to change their sex instead of just telling them to do what they enjoy.
"Your a girl who likes sports, a guy who likes baking cakes? Your tRaNs then"
Jeff's entire argument above requires defining gender by what someone likes to do. It is one of the most sexist things one can do and it fills the whole narrative jeff espouses.
There is a difference between "being a man" and "being manly". Agree or disagree?
"Being a man" means having the correct male biology.
"Being manly" implies expressing qualities traditionally associated with biological males.
Maybe your didactic linguistic games would be a little more effective if you’d taken high school English. You’re not fooling anyone by trying to remove the biological component from the word.
Wow, Oxford was "woke" even all the way back in 1919, wasn't it?
Somehow the definition of "woman" missed your notice in there. I'll reiterate for you:
wo’man (woo-), n. (pi. wo’men^v. wi-), & v.t. Adult human female (every w. is to him a lady; w.’s or xcomen’s rights, position of legal equa- lity with men demanded for women ; there ‘s a to. in it, way of accounting for man’s inexplic- able conduct ; w. with a past, with some scan- dal attaching to her past life ; w. of the world, experienced in society, not raw & innocent ; play the w., weep or show fear ; make an hon- est w. of, marry after seducing; tied to w.’s apron-strings, controlled like child by her; single w., spinster; the scarlet w.; wise1^.); (without article) the average or typical w., the female sex, any w., (how does w. differ from man ?; man born of w., mortal man ; is an ex- cellent thing in w.; w.’s wit, instinctive in- sight or resource ; w.’s reason l ; O TV., in apo- strophes) ; queen’s or great lady’s female at- tendant, lady in waiting, (archaic ; sent one of her row. to ask) ; man with feminine character- istics (is a iv. in tenderness ; the old ww. in the cabinet ; all the old ww. of both sexes) ; the fe- minine emotions (all thew. in her rose in rebel- lion ; stirred the w. in him ; has much of the w. in his composition) ; (attrib.) female (w. doctor, friend, counsellor ; councillor ; w. suffrage, ex- tension or possession of political suffrage to or by ww.) ; (as suf.: chiefly in terms correl. to compounds in -man) w. concerned or dealing or skilful with (country w., shopw., horsew., churchw., chairw., ferry w., applew., needlew., &c; also by close comb, with adj., as gen- tletv.); w.-hater, misogynist ; womankind, ww. (one’s w.-k. or ww.-k., the ww. of one’s family) ; womenfolk, ww., one’s womankind ; hence wo’manHOOD n., wo’manLESS, wo’man-like, aa. (Vb) make behave like a w., cause to weep &c.; address as ‘ w.\ ‘my good w.’, &c., speak of as ‘w.’ (not ‘lady’). IOE wifman (wife, man) i.e. woman person]
The very first fucking definition is: "Adult human female", i.e., not a male.
The 1919 Oxford dictionary was pretty clear that a "man" was a "male". In fact it said so explicitly. Nowhere did it say "a female that identifies as a male".
Time to stop lying about it, Jeff.
Jesse thinks it's better to send people suffering from gender dysphoria to mental hospitals, involuntarily if necessary, and force them to accept treatment to "become normal".
Better than maiming their bodies with imitation genitalia that don't do anything but be painful?
Fuck yeah!
See, sarcasmic, this is why I still engage with these guys. Because of examples like this. Here we have ML on record explicitly supporting the forcible, involuntary confinement of transgender individuals in mental hospitals, against their will, in order to "cure" them. Because he really is authoritarian enough and stupid enough to say the quiet part out loud like that.
Mother's Lament is the worst human being I've ever been unfortunate enough to communicate with in my entire life. I wouldn't piss on his face if his teeth were on fire. So I really don't care what he supports.
"Ideas! I was only being sarcastic! It's just a joke! You idiots take me seriously!"
Thanks for putting words I didn't say in my mouth again, Jeffy. You do that everytime you lose an argument and don't know what to do.
Now quit evading and tell us why it's better to castrate and then gouge a fake vaginia into a messed-up fourteen-year-old, than to offer him to psychiatric treatment instead.
I sincerely hope no one allows this sick fuck around children. It wouldn’t shock me to find out he’s already on a sex offender registry.
Yes, they are. With absolutely no evidence to support it.
Yes. I've seen what accepting anything leads to in an exceptionally rich society.
It leads to kids thinking they're 'puppies' and demanding 'puppy pronouns'. It leads to Emo. It leads to grown dudes living their 'woman fetish' - including a grown man (who meets with the President) who claims to be *a pre-teen transgender girl*. Femboys, furries, etc - all fetish shit but in a society that doesn't know how to compartmentalize anymore, that don't recognize there is a time and place for things. A society that insists on sexualizing children. A society that is, literally, working to add pedophiles to the LGBT spectrum - oh, its just another sexuality like all the others. Except all the others after the 'B' are just fucking insane.
We gave it a try. We said 'ok, go do whatever the fuck you want'. Now dudes dressed up as clowns demand lesbians have sex with them because sex and gender are the same thing when its convenient for them, different things when *that* is convenient for them.
The best thing you can do for a loved one is tell them 'you're being fucking weird, knock it off'.
Sounds like someone who cannot handle the complexity of reality and wants to impose simplistic binary thinking on it instead.
You do realize that there have always been gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people, right? Even in the 1950s? It's just that they were forced, either by social pressure or sometimes by the law itself, to conform to their stereotypical heterosexual conceptualization of their gender. This force didn't change who they were, it just instead forced them to live a lie. Is that really what you want? Force the "different" people to deny who they are so that you don't have to grapple with the complexity of a non-binary world?
"You do realize that there have always been gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people, right?"
Nope.
There have always been people who enjoyed buggery and tribadism, and people who got their kicks from crossdressing, but pigeonholing them and turning their sexual proclivities into ever increasing identities is a (mostly late) 20th century invention.
This may come as a shock to you, but it is believed that Leonardo da Vinci was gay.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/leonardo-da-vinci-gay-sexuality-b1831842.html
I don't know if he called himself gay or whatever the Renaissance Italian term for that would have been. But the point was that he liked men, and he had to hide and disguise his sexuality because it was illegal at the time. Making it illegal didn't turn da Vinci straight, it simply meant that he had to hide it. That's my point.
Leonardo da Vinci probably liked buggering boys more than pussy. He wasn't "gay" because the identity "gay" is a 20th century construct.
Also, liking men wasn't illegal. The sexual act of sodomy was.
The same as how liking children isn’t illegal. Just the stuff Shrike and Jeffy want to do to them is illegal.
Jeff's entire argument and rationalization requires turning proclivities into biology. With his history it makes sense as he rationalize his pedophilia urges.
Again, jeff can't understanding letting individuals be individuals without allowing them to change through drugs or surgery. In fact his narrative requires the latter. Including the government funding of it and threats against those not playing along with the delusion.
Again, jeff can’t understanding letting individuals be individuals without allowing them to change through drugs or surgery.
I am not in favor of either requiring or forbidding, with government force, anyone from accessing gender affirming care. That would be you pal, on the "forbidding" part.
*I* want to let individuals be individuals. *You* want to shoe-horn everyone into one of two stereotypes and force them to adopt one of them even if it means they are miserable and living a lie.
So you equate biological reality to ‘stereotyping’?
Well, he is a big government globalist leftist.
I used to work with this bull dike cook. Her being a butch didn't bother me. It was her constant sharing of her sexual exploits. If some frat boy talked shit about his conquests people would tell him to shut it. But with her you say anything and she claims homophobia.
So one day one of the guys asks how I like the job, and I say it's fine except for the lesbian midget who can't keep her personal life to herself. Well this 4'10" woman steps out from behind the cooler and says "I'm gonna get you fired!"
I get hauled into the office. They say I called her a dike. I said "I called her a lesbian midget. She'd less than five feet and she likes women. I thought it was a statement of fact."
They kicked me out of the office so I wouldn't see them laugh.
My point is that personal lives are best kept personal. Yeah there have always been such people. They used to keep their personal lives personal. Just like everyone else.
And another story self admitted by sarc showing him to be an asshole.
I actually loved that story, tbqh. Classic sarcasmic.
Lol. "Complexity of reality." Post modernist bullshit. There are two sexes. Biology is understood. You have to pretend you have some esoteric knowledge that is never properly defined and can change on a whim. Youre espousing religious views.
There are two sexes. Biology is understood.
Yes, there are!
Now, please point to the chromosome or gene which requires men to wear a coat and tie, or requires women to wear lipstick and mascara.
Don't compete with the strawman factory. Let them corner the market.
Not a strawman you retarded fuck. Hard to proclaim a strawman when you can't see the argument made. What a dumbass.
the trans ideology folks sound just like brainwashed cultists. it's amazing to watch.
Fatfuck, we’re not talking about wardrobe. We’re talking about how you and your fellow travelers are obsessed with grooming children to believe things that have no basis in science. Then use these bullshit ideas of yours to groom them for pharmaceutical and surgical mutilation.
People like you should be executed for that.
Sounds like someone who cannot handle the complexity of reality and wants to impose simplistic binary thinking on it instead.
Sounds like someone's full of shit, can't get enough, and needs to actively spew it on other people whether they want it or not. Choke it off or someone else will do it for you shit-for-brains.
Jeff espouses alchemy, just through biology.
“This force didn’t change who they were, it just instead forced them to live a lie. Is that really what you want?”
Yes.
I want the serial killers and pedophiles to be forced to conform to norms that look down on that sort of thing.
Beyond that, we can talk about doing what we’ve been doing – that being that there are spaces for ‘queerness’ and a strict understanding that in public is not one of those spaces.
New York City has been a corrupt tyranny for well over a hundred years. It's just that sometimes the corruption and the tyranny are more explicitly obvious than at other times.
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1608854327879426050?t=xMPcBFEZ2en4NPd0ImQ32w&s=19
Libertarianism continues to prove itself to be an utterly useless and irrelevant political movement
[Link to Shackford article]
715K views… 278 likes.
Imagine for a moment, Gary Johnson drawing in almost 5% of the electorate. Then imagine Scott Shackford getting less than *0*.*0*4*% of Twits on Twitter to click the like button. You’d almost think he’s actively trying to tank the LP/libertarianism.
The irony is that Schackford is in no way a libertarian. Just another leftist beltway hack.
Indeed, it will be significantly more tyrannical *because* the snoops believe its for your own protection.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Always appropriate quote.
something something TSA
https://twitter.com/_BarringtonII/status/1608863739155197952?t=MEfjtdVQijOAhpfvxfS-Lw&s=19
Americans who hate Trump can’t see that they just opened the floodgates for the FEDS to peek into their private finances. How can these people be so worried about one man when the “leaders” they elect continue to increase their own wealth through leveraging gov’t expenditures?
Haven’t heard much about the release of trump’s tax returns.
Too funny.
Another big setup and flop for the true believers. Yet once again they shake it off like water on a ducks back and eagerly await the next hoax.
They release the entirety of the returns today on the congressional record. Mccarthy should do the same for the Bidens, Schumer, and Pelosi in response. Let them see self assured destruction.
or the fact that the J6 committee came up with nothing and nothing will happen.
the walls are closing in!
the walls are closing in!Federal raids to retrieve [redacted] secrets from anyone and everyone!
With enough scrutiny I'm sure there are a few errors. Something I would expect from a complicated return. They will play it up as some big criminal intent when it probably is just a mistake.
Americans who hate Trump can’t see that they just opened the floodgates for the FEDS to peek into their private finances.
They already had that power. They've had that power for a very long time.
Anyone remember that story about the guy who left his prescription for codeine in his work van at the airport... Tampa Florida, I think? It was back when they were pushing the pill mills and the feds were all over Florida.
Same time period as the guy in a wheelchair who got arrested for taking too much prescription opiods for chronic pain and then the prison doctors gave him more.
[WE] gangs packing Gov-Guns needs to keep an eye on you!
Because [WE] aren’t the one’s running around with Guns Stealing and Committing Crimes against the people.
Oh wait……… Yeah they are. That day ‘government’ started working as a criminal gang instead of to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all..
YOU know this because using [WE] GUNS to thwart YOUR Liberty isn’t ensuring Individual Liberty at all.
"Sell your souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don't own you, [WE] own you!"
Most tyrannical states are tyrannical for the best of intentions.
The best thing Eric Adams can do for our health is keep getting boosters.
Will surveillance be applied/utilized uniformly? If so, why was facial recognition not used to ID/arrest the arsonists, looters, vandals, and murderers that ran rampant during the BLM riots?
I think we all know the answer- it will NOT be uniformly applied, and will be used to target those on the progressive enemy list. "Domestic terrorists" at school board meetings and praying outside abortion clinics.