It’s an odd argument

well researched and well argued response to the evidence-free scaremongering and barely laundered antisemitism of cisgender authors who claim to know more about trans people than trans people do. It details the links between UK anti-trans feminism and the US Christian Right,

Quite why antisemitism is in there is unknown. But connecting it with the famously philosemitic US Christian Right is absurd.

16 thoughts on “It’s an odd argument”

  1. Idk either. Is he saying The Jews are trying to steal people’s dicks? Because I’m pretty sure they just want the tips.

    So the only people who can observe what trannies are like are trannies, which is why only insane people can diagnose mental illness:

    cisgender authors who claim to know more about trans people than trans people do

    And the very next bit is him approvingly quoting a book by another lunatic tranny with “he/him” pronouns about women.

    Maybe the lack of self-awareness is a survival mechanism? Probably safer to constantly lie to yourself and others than realise what you’ve done and commit sudoku. I think I respect the Japs more tho, despite knowing a few old buffers who survived their POW camps and freely told me what a cruel race of sword-wielding little bastards they are.

  2. “Quite why antisemitism is in there is unknown. But connecting it with the famously philosemitic US Christian Right is absurd.”

    Facts? I don’t need no stinking facts!

  3. Quite why antisemitism is in there is unknown. But connecting it with the famously philosemitic US Christian Right is absurd.

    Au contraire, it’s a valuable indicator of how the eccentric transitions (yes!)to neurodiversity and thence to full-on bonkersness.

    You can safely ignore all this if you subscribe to the don’t-care-in-the-community ethos which also handily indemnifies you against accusations of white saviourism.

  4. I’ve got used to “anti-semitic” meaning ‘disapproves of some policies of the Israeli government’. But mastering a new meaning is probably asking too much. Anyway, I look forward to my first sighting of ‘neo-anti-semitism’. It must be just around the corner.

  5. “commit sudoku”

    As it’s the Blessed Steve, I’m sure this was intentional, but if it’s an autocorrect fail for Seppuku, that’s even funnier.

  6. The Squad just tried to deny Israel the right to intercept missiles aimed at its citizens, so that should tell you everything about where the anti-semites are.

    The most popular argument is that the Christian Right “only supports Israel because they want to bring about the End Times.” Meanwhile, the left has pro-Palestinian rioters violently attacking Jews in multiple cities simply for wearing a yarmulke. So I’m pretty sure I’d prefer some wacky beliefs over an actual threat. Strange, I know.

  7. “The Squad just tried to deny Israel the right to intercept missiles aimed at its citizens”: a loathsome bunch, the Squad, but I suspect you are misrepresenting what they’ve done. I suspect that they tried to stop the American taxpayer having to pay for Israeli missiles. That’s certainly the case made in these links.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/democrats-iron-dome-israel-funding-b1925119.html

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/iron-dome-intercepted-squad-launched-perfectly-timed-strike-on-us-israel-ties/

  8. Because its not a well-reasoned argument. Its Orwellian. Its emotional bullying where you use logic to defeat logic.

    Anti-semite is in there because they know that the sort of people who oppose them consider it to be very bad. Same reason they’ll call you ‘Nazi’ or ‘white-supremecist’. Not because there’s any evidence that you are these things, but because tarring you with that brush could spook you and get you to back off. At the very least they expect that you’ll shift to denying it (goin defensive) rather force them to stay on the main subject.

    And, of course, they *actually want Israel gone* – but *they’re* not the anti-semites.

    Its the essence of ‘double-speak’. Not something Orwell made up, but something he observed as a natural part of human domination practices.

  9. I suspect that they tried to stop the American taxpayer having to pay for Israeli missiles. That’s certainly the case made in these links.

    One could respect that – Justin Amash voted no and that’s generally what he does for any foreign spending.

    But the whole squad is notoriously anti-semitic (the outlier is AOC who is ‘reluctantly’ anti-semitic so she can fit in with the rest) and if they were voting to prevent American taxpayers paying for it, there’d be no reason for AOC to be *CRYING* about changing her vote from ‘no’ to ‘present’.

  10. I can see why the US taxpayer should pay. It is a payback for Eisenhower’s intervention in the Suez campaign.

    Just because the useless twat was antiBritish, he shafted the foreskinless too.

  11. @ Withchie
    Wrong! John Foster Dulles was anti-Eden because Eden was a WWI hero while Dulles ducked out of fighting. Eisenhower wasn’t anti-British but he got angry because his campaign manager told him that the Brits had royally fucked up his re-election campaign on the “peace” platform (the Democrats had led the USA into WWI, WWII and the Korean War). Nobody chose to point out to Ike that Nasser only stole the Suez Canal because Dulles had blocked funding for the Aswan Dam …

  12. If the U.S. (or any country) is going to invest in Middle Eastern nations, and/or form alliances, then it only makes sense to invest in an alliance with a country like Israel. A relationship with dictatorships that enforce sharia law is not sustainable, but Israel gives us a lot of return on investment. Anti-terrorism intelligence, medical research and technological innovation. That’s more than we’ll ever get from Iran or Pakistan.

    The reason why it’s considered anti-Semitic when people like AOC try to defund the Iron Dome:

    1) it’s literally a device that intercepts missiles, to prevent loss of human life. It’s not a weapon in the traditional sense.

    2) The Squad and other leftists always make accusations only against Israel, and pretend that Palestine, Pakistan, Iran, etc. are innocent little angels. We have a whole segment of people in the U.S. who want to ban 9/11 memorials because it might make Muslims look bad. As a Jew, if you ask me about Jeffrey Epstein, Jonathan Pollard, Bernie Madoff, George Soros, etc., I’m not going to defend these criminals just because they’re “like me.”

    3) They believe the fallacy that being less powerful automatically makes you a victim. The reality is, Palestinians are in their current situation because they hate Israelis and Jews more than they care about their own future. Look at what Israel does with its foreign aid, and look at what Palestine does with theirs. But the Squad will always be quick to point out that Palestinians are poor and “people of color.” They use any sleazy pull at the heartstrings to garner sympathy for a lethal threat that sends rockets and builds terror tunnels to attack innocent men, women and children.

    Bottom line is, if you’re going to pull foreign aid from the U.S.’s biggest ally in the region, and one that promotes far more liberal values than its neighbors, then you may as well pull foreign aid from everywhere else, instead of pushing a double standard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *