Carw Boo~
@chippydippy00.bsky.social
Age:21
From Straya~
Call me a good boy and I'll moan
From Straya~
Call me a good boy and I'll moan
Hey wants to act like Muslims lie for the sake of propagating their religion, despite that not being a thing, outside fringe groups of Shias who treat it like a virtue. Taqiyya is a legitimate thing, it's just when you lie to prevent harm coming to somebody, yourself included.
December 17, 2025 at 12:57 PM
Hey wants to act like Muslims lie for the sake of propagating their religion, despite that not being a thing, outside fringe groups of Shias who treat it like a virtue. Taqiyya is a legitimate thing, it's just when you lie to prevent harm coming to somebody, yourself included.
Dude, you're literally a living example of why censure against Marxism is appealing. You've contributed literally nothing of substance, goodness. I can only hope Trump destroys the US even more than what he already has. You deserve it, you intellectual inbred.
December 17, 2025 at 5:16 AM
Dude, you're literally a living example of why censure against Marxism is appealing. You've contributed literally nothing of substance, goodness. I can only hope Trump destroys the US even more than what he already has. You deserve it, you intellectual inbred.
I don't even like JK Rowling, I've never read her books. JK Rowling is an idiot when it comes to some issues, but as a classically feminist, she's ideologically consistent. That's literally the only point I made about her.
December 17, 2025 at 5:11 AM
I don't even like JK Rowling, I've never read her books. JK Rowling is an idiot when it comes to some issues, but as a classically feminist, she's ideologically consistent. That's literally the only point I made about her.
Okay, sure. A trans woman isn't a woman, prove me wrong, lefty. You literally can't, you can just assert that they are. See how circular reasoning has rotted your ability to actually engage with anything substantial?
December 17, 2025 at 5:09 AM
Okay, sure. A trans woman isn't a woman, prove me wrong, lefty. You literally can't, you can just assert that they are. See how circular reasoning has rotted your ability to actually engage with anything substantial?
Either you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or you're just actually stupid. I should not have to act like a professor and hold your hand through every point I make. How do you even get that from what I said?
December 17, 2025 at 5:08 AM
Either you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or you're just actually stupid. I should not have to act like a professor and hold your hand through every point I make. How do you even get that from what I said?
Either you have no self awareness or you're so dogmatically blinded as an ideologue, that it goes over your head. Gender was always, historically and socially, tied to ones sex. Nobody is disputing that, except you. Your group is the only one that says "well, actually, a male can be a woman".
December 17, 2025 at 5:04 AM
Either you have no self awareness or you're so dogmatically blinded as an ideologue, that it goes over your head. Gender was always, historically and socially, tied to ones sex. Nobody is disputing that, except you. Your group is the only one that says "well, actually, a male can be a woman".
And so, instead of engaging with any proper argumentation, we're right back to name calling. I swear, there's a reason your lot are widely regarded as being insufferable in the extremes. You're not only intellectually deprived, you're no different than some immature teenager.
December 17, 2025 at 5:02 AM
And so, instead of engaging with any proper argumentation, we're right back to name calling. I swear, there's a reason your lot are widely regarded as being insufferable in the extremes. You're not only intellectually deprived, you're no different than some immature teenager.
You're a social deconstructivist, that's the basis for your ideology. You break down or "deconstruct", social categories into being abstracted from any meaningful distinction. Absolutely idiotic, I swear.
December 17, 2025 at 5:00 AM
You're a social deconstructivist, that's the basis for your ideology. You break down or "deconstruct", social categories into being abstracted from any meaningful distinction. Absolutely idiotic, I swear.
Okay, I'm trying to reply to multiple different posts you've made. I can't just sit down and speak about one thing. Sorry if my attention isn't superhuman. So, I'm actually enjoying this, because it's still a constructive argument nonetheless. Do you want to stick to one point?
December 17, 2025 at 4:58 AM
Okay, I'm trying to reply to multiple different posts you've made. I can't just sit down and speak about one thing. Sorry if my attention isn't superhuman. So, I'm actually enjoying this, because it's still a constructive argument nonetheless. Do you want to stick to one point?
Oh, if you wanted me to be a social deconstructivist, I could simply say that gender as a category is a way to distinguish sexes in language and subsequent behaviours and appearances that are either traditionally or stereotypically assigned to them. That's how the word was classically used.
December 17, 2025 at 4:55 AM
Oh, if you wanted me to be a social deconstructivist, I could simply say that gender as a category is a way to distinguish sexes in language and subsequent behaviours and appearances that are either traditionally or stereotypically assigned to them. That's how the word was classically used.
They don't need to resent it in order to not support or believe in it. Resentment is just a sign of social disapproval.
December 17, 2025 at 4:53 AM
They don't need to resent it in order to not support or believe in it. Resentment is just a sign of social disapproval.
Okay, let's engage in a little thought experiment. Step outside your chronically online echo chamber and tell me this. Do the majority of people in the west accept the premise that Gender is entirely abstract from sex, and is just the amalgamation of stereotypical behaviour and appearances?
December 17, 2025 at 4:52 AM
Okay, let's engage in a little thought experiment. Step outside your chronically online echo chamber and tell me this. Do the majority of people in the west accept the premise that Gender is entirely abstract from sex, and is just the amalgamation of stereotypical behaviour and appearances?
Of course they're discriminated against, that's my entire point. The majority do not accept the premises that you are asserting, and because of that, they either treat it as a strange perversion or feel resentment towards that group of people. They're not given legitimacy from the bottom up.
December 17, 2025 at 4:50 AM
Of course they're discriminated against, that's my entire point. The majority do not accept the premises that you are asserting, and because of that, they either treat it as a strange perversion or feel resentment towards that group of people. They're not given legitimacy from the bottom up.
I don't think you understand what you're talking about or what's being discussed. Perhaps I've misspoken somewhere, but clearly you aren't engaging with the same arguments as I am if you can't follow what I'm saying.
December 17, 2025 at 4:47 AM
I don't think you understand what you're talking about or what's being discussed. Perhaps I've misspoken somewhere, but clearly you aren't engaging with the same arguments as I am if you can't follow what I'm saying.
Transgenderism, as an academically peddled social theory, is top down because it is only legitimised by contentious academic social theorists. It derives no legitimacy from majority consent of the public to its axiomatic premises, relying on moralistic assertions and nothing else. It's coercive.
December 17, 2025 at 4:46 AM
Transgenderism, as an academically peddled social theory, is top down because it is only legitimised by contentious academic social theorists. It derives no legitimacy from majority consent of the public to its axiomatic premises, relying on moralistic assertions and nothing else. It's coercive.
Except this doesn't help everyone. It creates categorical confusion and resentment because of that, it segregates transgenders anyways, because the ideology is top down. It's only peddled by niche, contentious sociological theorists. The common people do not accept those premises as being axiomatic.
December 17, 2025 at 4:43 AM
Except this doesn't help everyone. It creates categorical confusion and resentment because of that, it segregates transgenders anyways, because the ideology is top down. It's only peddled by niche, contentious sociological theorists. The common people do not accept those premises as being axiomatic.
Nice ad hom, that you'd distract from the glaring epistemological issue of your ideology instead of actually addressing it. You know your definitions are circular, and therefore entirely abstract and subjective. My Honda Civic can be a woman, because it vaguely fulfils feminine roles, etc, etc.
December 17, 2025 at 4:40 AM
Nice ad hom, that you'd distract from the glaring epistemological issue of your ideology instead of actually addressing it. You know your definitions are circular, and therefore entirely abstract and subjective. My Honda Civic can be a woman, because it vaguely fulfils feminine roles, etc, etc.
You were asking about why I'd be opposed to "diversification" of identity. I gave you an example of the topic we're discussing, transgenderism. Furthermore, due to the categorical confusion these ideologies cause, you are aware that creates general resentment and not unity, correct?
December 17, 2025 at 4:37 AM
You were asking about why I'd be opposed to "diversification" of identity. I gave you an example of the topic we're discussing, transgenderism. Furthermore, due to the categorical confusion these ideologies cause, you are aware that creates general resentment and not unity, correct?
Do you know what circular reasoning is? "Women are people who act and look like women". Hmmm... I see no possible problem with this definition.
December 17, 2025 at 4:31 AM
Do you know what circular reasoning is? "Women are people who act and look like women". Hmmm... I see no possible problem with this definition.
Gender, from a historical, cultural, social and religious dynamic has always been primarily defined by biological identifiers. Men are males, women are females. Yes, you have subdivisions within that framework. Tomboys, twinks, etc. But those are derivatives of those two primary categories.
December 17, 2025 at 4:30 AM
Gender, from a historical, cultural, social and religious dynamic has always been primarily defined by biological identifiers. Men are males, women are females. Yes, you have subdivisions within that framework. Tomboys, twinks, etc. But those are derivatives of those two primary categories.
Except, you can't provide any argument for that other than just baseless assertion. "Woman" in what way? How do you categorically determine "womanhood" if it is simply the sum total of feminine behaviour and appearance? What even counts as "feminine" in that case? It is logically incoherent.
December 17, 2025 at 4:27 AM
Except, you can't provide any argument for that other than just baseless assertion. "Woman" in what way? How do you categorically determine "womanhood" if it is simply the sum total of feminine behaviour and appearance? What even counts as "feminine" in that case? It is logically incoherent.
If that's what you want to call me, go ahead, pal. It means nothing to me.
December 17, 2025 at 4:25 AM
If that's what you want to call me, go ahead, pal. It means nothing to me.
Because it collapses categories into logical incoherency and promotes rabid societal polarisation. Like, you thought you did something there, but you didn't. Postmodern thought is just a symptom of severe societal dysfunction.
December 17, 2025 at 4:23 AM
Because it collapses categories into logical incoherency and promotes rabid societal polarisation. Like, you thought you did something there, but you didn't. Postmodern thought is just a symptom of severe societal dysfunction.
I mean, unlike you, I can justify my positions via argument. Like, you can engage in your personal cross-dressing theatrics, I can acknowledge that might make you feel better about your bodily insecurities. But that's not proof of your beliefs being "true" in any meaningful sense as a truth claim.
December 17, 2025 at 4:20 AM
I mean, unlike you, I can justify my positions via argument. Like, you can engage in your personal cross-dressing theatrics, I can acknowledge that might make you feel better about your bodily insecurities. But that's not proof of your beliefs being "true" in any meaningful sense as a truth claim.
Ah, that explains so much. It's a shame that Marx was methodologically flawed in his theory of value. I mean, to insinuate that society is ontologically the product of hierarchical oppression of classes of people is shortsighted at best and ignorant at worst. It ignores every other societal factor.
December 17, 2025 at 4:17 AM
Ah, that explains so much. It's a shame that Marx was methodologically flawed in his theory of value. I mean, to insinuate that society is ontologically the product of hierarchical oppression of classes of people is shortsighted at best and ignorant at worst. It ignores every other societal factor.