Blacks who vote for Omnibus Crime Bill Biden and Kamala-the-Cop are equal in stupidity to whites who fancy that Trump will save them from brown people. I suppose that they are all just Americans.

Hey, Biden-lovers, isn’t The Nation one of your favourite left-wing rags?

In the progressive modern world of Twitter-tier attention spans, nobody has a long enough memory to see these cheap political jobbers for what they are: Tyrants of the lowest order, each and all, who only tell their fans what they want to hear for long enough to get the power to betray them.

I’ve lost track of this thread—well, I never kept track of it; but I do owe some brief replies here. (Some of which I began to prepare a few days ago.)

Roosevelt’s Court Packing Scheme

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 19, 2020, 06:35:13 PM

Quote from: nullius on October 19, 2020, 04:45:00 PM

How do you suppose that he got away with instant tyranny, as much as he wanted? (For pedantic correctness: Off the top of my head, I don’t know if the Roosevelt gold ban was one of the issues directly impacted by the court-stacking threat; but I do know that the Commerce Clause abuse that is nowadays institutionalized to Federalize everything did start with Roosevelt, for exactly that reason. And your Supreme Court should have, and otherwise would have promptly torn up everything from Socialist Insecurity, to quotas imposed on how much farmers could grow, etc., etc.)

A president can't just pack the courts though. His only real power is to stop them from being packed. For the number of judges to change, you need enough of the 400+ members of the House that represent the entire country and are elected every 2 years to make it happen. So, not really tyranny.

Why do you speak as if I were proposing some weird theory? Roosevelt’s court packing scheme is so infamous that it is currently a Wikipedia redirect from “Court packing”! (Just making a point; n.b. that I do not recommend “learning” about history or politics from Wikipedia. (article))

Oh, also:

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 19, 2020, 06:35:13 PM

So, not really tyranny.

Do you suggest that if a democratic government follows some procedures, it cannot be tyranny? (!)

Vide: Democracy in action!

(!)

Quote from: eddie13 on October 20, 2020, 05:54:23 AM

Yeah... What kind of goofball would think that the Supreme Court should lean towards constitutional conservatism?
Must’a been dropped on his head..

Needs some Marxist sympathizers on it to counter the libertarian principles that have been there, oh, since it’s formation roundabouts..
Better just take the system so it’s “fair” and all..

Vide: Democracy in action!

Democracy Defined

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 20, 2020, 05:41:30 AM

Quote from: Gyfts on October 20, 2020, 03:03:52 AM

And if you're threatening to change the number of justices on the court to use as a bargaining chip, that's literally undemocratic.

How is it literally undemocratic to pass a law that changes the number of justices on the supreme court?

How is it that “democratic” is implicitly equated with “good and justified”?

Democracy is the “ideal” that the lunatics should run the asylum. But they can’t—which means that the most corrupt mass-manipulators rule over The Peeeeeeople. So as for “government by the people”.

I agree with this:

Quote from: Dr. Oscar Levy, Preface to Anthony Ludovici’s “Nietzsche: His Life and Works” (London, 1910), pp. viii, xii.

Nietzsche may have been right, therefore he may be unsuccessful. [...] ...the driving power behind democracy is not a political one, it is religious—it is Christianity.

[...]

There [Napoleon] was another victim of democracy... The mighty sword in the beginning and the mighty pen at the end of the last century [1800s] were alike impotent against—Fate.

The Oppression of “Gender”

Quote from: OgNasty on October 21, 2020, 04:49:14 PM

By mental illness I’m not referring to physical ailments as mentioned above. I’m talking about the crazy gender neutral creatures I see who are offended by pronouns.

I am more offended by the bastardization of the English language. I win at taking offence. The liberals can never compete with my incontestable superiority at being offended by them. (And nobody can compete with me for literary insults.)

Also, a message to Orwellian “liberals”: Stop oppressing me.

Boldface is in the original:

Quote from: nullius on January 22, 2020, 11:10:04 PM

This is why I initially refused on principle to set my “gender” in my forum profile. I don’t have a “gender”, in the ridiculous postmodern meaning which has been quite artfully constructed for that word. I have a sex, and it is an innate, naturally unalterable part of who I am which I refuse to devalue by calling it a “gender”.

I find the term “gender” highly offensive!

...a thought-control exercise in the power of he who defines which I find deeply oppressive. Think about it: This is real oppression!

Quote from: nullius on September 05, 2020, 12:53:17 AM

Quote from: sirazimuth on September 05, 2020, 12:00:01 AM

(And yes "they" is grammatically correct for referring to the singular, or so I've heard.)

No, it is not correct—outside the fantasies of the Newspeak Dictionary, Tenth Edition (or is it the Eleventh now?).

[...]

Back in the day—when people spoke English, in contradistinction to the bastardized postmodern cant used by degenerate anthropoids with pickled brains.

[...]

“Back in the day”, women customarily signed their letters with a parenthesized title so that others would know whether to apply “Mrs.” or “Miss”. E.g., “Sincerely, Alice Smith (Mrs.)”. Just sayin’...

Warning: Users of hallucinogenic substances are nuts!

Quote from: OgNasty on October 22, 2020, 06:22:58 PM

Quote from: nutildah on October 21, 2020, 10:58:27 PM

Much though I despise you, I wouldn’t want to see anyone caught up in arguing seriously against someone who thinks that taking LSD is an experience comparable to taking a trip to France (!). (+4 from suchmoon.)

In my experience, I have found that users of hallucinogens always have something subtly broken with their internal logic—even years later, and regardless of general intelligence or educational attainment. Their judgment is irreparably compromised. I would not waste my time discussing with them any fixed ideas that they may form, although I must occasionally correct some of their grossly wrong statements for other reasons.

I don’t necessarily dislike such people. For a contrary example, one of my past girlfriends was an earnestly devoted woman, plus one of the most highly literate people of either sex whom I have ever yet had the pleasure of knowing. She had dropped acid when she was a university student. Despite her profound intellect and her sincere intentions, I found that in any matter that required incisively distinguishing reality from illusions, I could not trust her thought process. Sadly. Our intercourse on poetry and literature was amazing—as was “intercourse”. But alas, I could never rely on her judgment.

I do suppose that if you drop enough acid, you can see as many “genders” as you want.

Neological Abortions

Quote from: eddie13 on October 22, 2020, 08:05:25 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 22, 2020, 07:12:35 PM

Transphobia today is what Homophobia was 20 years ago.

Both of these words are propaganda deflection terms..

Yes. And both are also etymologically ridiculous. “Homophobia” literally means ‘fear of sameness’, or perhaps ‘same fear’. “Transphobia” means ‘across fear’, and is a bastardized hybrid mutt-word.

These neological abortions are typical of the calibre of minds that also produce such chimeras as “polyamory” and “sexology”—although both of these latter words identify real concepts, for which older, better words exist. I will be cruel and leave the crowd in suspense, so as to avoid casting more pearls here.

Disclaimer: Whereas Nietzsche was a doctor of philology, I am but an amateur.

Quote from: Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, #260.

Everywhere that slave-morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words “good” and “stupid.”

Like him, I am not nice. I will admit that all the “gender” stuff is a nice theory, in the old-fashioned sense.

Quote from: https://www.etymonline.com/word/nice

nice (adj.)

late 13c., "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + stem of scire "to know" (see science).