Culture

Words Like “Man” and “Chairman” Are Being Censored On College Campuses

289 Comments

Summer is ending and students are returning to campus. Wait, that should read: We are approaching the 9th menstrual period of the year, and special snowflakes are returning to their indoctrination centers.

The Age Of Trigglypuff

After the feminist student uprisings of last year, several incidences of loud angry yelling, culminating in Yale students throwing a tantrum from fear of being triggered by extra-scary insensitive Halloween costumes, administrations around the nation have created new language for students to use.

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill has issued a fatwah banning the use not only of the word man, but any compound words that may be built on the word man or father, such as mankind or forefathers.

WritingGuide

UNC Chapel Hill Diktat

The neutering of our language is accelerating, and already the above is reminiscent of the genderless “particular individual” dialogue in Ideocracy.  Recently, Princeton University added its contribution to the castrating of the English tongue with a publication from its HR department titled “Guidelines for Using Gender Inclusive Language.” (TRIGGER WARNING: It reads like a Communist industrial factory diktat). Here are a few tidbits:

Gender Inclusive Exclusive Language

newspeak

“Gender-inclusive language is writing and speaking about people in a manner that does not use gender-based words.”  Well, that’s a big fuck you to the multicultural movement. How insensitive is that to foreign exchange students who were taught an “inferior” language that has gendered nouns?  Examples of appropriate language include the following:

Each employee is expected to turn in his annual disclosure form by the deadline 

Becomes…

The incumbent is expected to edit a variety of documents and must also prepare a weekly update.

Way to welcome the incoming class of freshmen, particular individuals, and make them feel like mindless automatons!  George Carlin, a man far ahead of his time, warned of the dangers of soft language.

A good comedian is a master of language, and already Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, and Bill Maher have stopped performing at campuses where a young adult may be so personally damaged by the humorous words of one of their jokes, that they Just Can’t Even because It Is The Current Year.

genericterms

What Is Language?

cratylus

Words have meanings; their definitions are as fixed as our genders, and do not waver on a weekly basis.  The goal of redefining language and banning words is simply to elevate women and vilify men.  The UNC guide makes this obvious, when it states that in cases where “men and women” must be used, to reverse the order and state “women and men.”

holmes

Plato debated the meaning of language in his 5th century BC work Cratylus, pitting the ideas of conventionalism, where local feelz determine what the meaning of a word is, and naturalism, which holds that words cannot be arbitrarily chosen, because names belong naturally to their specific objects.

Some Helpful Suggestions

I can’t help but notice that the revisionists have failed to come up with a gender-inclusive word to replace the repressive “actress”–instead forcing female thespians to accept the male “actor.”  I propose that male and female actors from here on be known as Imaginoids.  In that vain I have several other suggestions to help keep college students out of trouble.

Shitlord Term       Extra Double Plus Good Term

Man                        Particular individual

Manhole                 Poo-river-portal

Manage                  Bossify

Manacles               Wedding Ring

Mandate                Femsplain

Manipulate            Speak

Mandatory            Freedom

Manifest                Femmipoof

Mandibles            Pie-hole-guard

Ombudsman        Muh-Feelz-Woman

Maniac                 Man

Manners               Queefdom

Manicotti              Bobbits

Month                   Menstrual Period

Manicure              PettiPaw

Manatee               Stunning and Brave Cow

Manual                 Pre-Herstory

Forefathers          Dead White Male Cis Scum I Can’t Even!

Germans              Literally Hitler

Manhandle           Rape

Sex                       Rape

Example: It’s so great to finally bossify some changes around here.  I mean it’s menstrual month 9 of the current year and I’ve already been raped once this semester, but thanks to the Muh-Feelz-Woman’s freedom femsplaining, we have finally femmipoofed utopia into existence.

Learn The Above or Else…

Organized higher education in America is a dangerous gauntlet for men, growing more deadly with every year.  When this group of children is let out into the workforce, to HR departments around the country, this language will spread to every large corporation.  Consider wisely your future path.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: Australian Male Senator Shuts Down Female Colleague for Accusing Him of Mansplaining

289 thoughts on “Words Like “Man” and “Chairman” Are Being Censored On College Campuses”

  1. Just today I received the weekly news update from my university boasting that the incoming class is the most diverse student body to date with roughly half the students identifying as students of color and a quarter as underrepresented minorities.
    The head of my department – a woman – has a Twitter account that is a relentless misandric tirade with one retweet after another of a study showing that women are somehow oppressed or discriminated against in academia and STEM. She must do nothing but sit at her desk and retweet all day. It’s infuriating.
    All of the opportunities are for women and minorities: all the career fairs, the networking events, the career planning seminars, everything.
    The message could not be more clear:
    White men are unwelcome and unwanted on college campuses.

    1. Ironic that the major corporate shareholders who oversee the selection of candidates for the corporate positions that go to college graduates are all rich, powerful, white men. Same for the people who own all the mainstream media. Same for the guys who own the publishing houses that publish the idiots’ textbooks. The genius college graduates can’t seem to figure that one out, though…

    2. That’s not entirely true. They need some white men to fund their bullshit because the hair pies, boot lips and table-faces won’t or can’t.

      1. No, the Federal Reserve will just print more funny money: “Speed it up a little!”

      2. “hey need some white men to fund their bullshit because the hair pies, boot lips and table-faces won’t or can’t.”
        Aka the nany state.

  2. Some people seem to have high hopes for the Millenial generation: that soon they will be handed the reins of power.
    Bullshit.
    The Baby Boomers have been setting the course of this country for nearly 50 years. When they were young – 16, 17, 18 – they were protesting against the Vietnam War and their activism led to American withdrawal. Both presidential candidates Clinton and Trump, both nearly 70, are of the Baby Boomer generation.
    I predict that the Millenial generation will be violently pushed aside and mocked by the generation that follows. Much like how the older traditional establishment was pushed aside by the young fascists in Italy and Germany: the fascist movement in the 1920s and 30s whether in Italy, Germany, Croatia, etc derived their support from the younger generation: the Hitler Youth, the Black Shirts, the Brownshirts, the SS etc.
    Just as the men who led the fascist movements, e.g., Mussolini, Hitler, Codreanu were older than the men they inspired, I think we are those men. Among people our own age, we are in the minority. But I expect the Millenial generation to be pushed aside and regarded as obsolete and trite by the coming generation of Americans who, finding themselves completely disenfranchised and having nothing to lose, will become bellicose and confrontational and defiant.

    1. Ironic that the major corporate shareholders who oversee the selection of candidates for the corporate positions that go to college graduates are all rich, powerful, white men. Same for the people who own all the mainstream media. Same for the guys who own the publishing houses that publish the idiots’ textbooks. The genius graduates can’t seem figure that one out, though…

  3. College is such a waste of time and money. Learn sales/copywriting and start your own business avoid all the bullshit while also making ten times what you debt laden indoctrinated friends will make.

  4. The current generation of Millenial drones seem to all aspire to land that coveted job working at Scroogle or Fuckbook. Somehow, I don’t think the following generation will buy that they have to study computer science for a decade so they can sit in a cube farm writing apps to help people locate the nearest glory hole.

      2. I basically make around $6000-$8000 /every month from freelancing online. Anyone ready to complete easy freelance work for 2-5 h a day from your house and earn decent paycheck in the same time… Try this gig http://self36.com

    4. Post of the week! I bet those that are faggotizing the English language would love that app! lol

    6. Millennials are realizing that they can’t get jobs at Scroogle or Zuckerbook because those companies want illegal & incompetent H-1B visa indentured servants.
      The best an American can reasonably hope for at those companies is to be hired temporarily to teach the H-1Bers everything that they know.
      Or, as Disney World calls it, “knowledge transfer”.

    7. You forgot to mention being force-indoctrinated by the faggoty likes of Suckherturd or the late Blow Jobs (aka Steve Knobs), screaming at you about their Vision and making it happen.
      And don’t get me started on that assburgher, Gill Bates…
      http://i.imgur.com/cn3dDO6.jpg

    1. Eventually, we’ll not be able to say the word dictionary without everyone giggling like a school child.
      After that, we won’t be able to say it due to its polysyllabic nature.
      And after that there will be no need for, and no one who knows how to make, dictionaries. Or write, or do much of anything beyond shit and masturbate into their remaining water sources.

  6. The only thing the American educational system had going for it was the tendency to be iconoclastic, to question, to be defiant and impudent and to have the audacity to think that not all the answers can be found in a book. Now with SJW group think, witch hunts, conformity, this Ace up America’s sleeve is being discarded. You will not be able to out rote-memorize the Chinese who study 7 days a week 365 days a year.

  7. I can only imagine what whoever is living 1000 years from now will say about us.

    1. “They used to have big shining birds with which they were able to fly by burning a mysterious liquid we can not find a trace of. I wonder how they did that.”

    2. By then, humanity will have devolved so much that it won’t even have the curiosity to lift its dim uncomprehending eyes skyward to wonder what that big shiny thing in the nighttime sky is.

    4. “Wen Mr Clevver wuz Big Man uv Inland thay had evere thing clevver. Thay had boats in the ayr & picters on the win & evere thing lyk that. Eusa wuz a noing man vere quik he cud tern his han tu enne thing. He wuz werkin for Mr Clevver wen thayr cum enemes aul roun & maykin Warr. Eusa sed tu Mr Clevver, Now wewl nead masheans uv Warr. Wewl nead boats that go on the water & boats that go in the ayr as wel & wewl nead Berstin Fyr.”

  8. For all their faults, the Baby Boomers were tremendously talented and creative: the music, the discoveries, the technology.
    I do not seem a similar spark among the Millenial generation. They will be forgotten, the nobodies generation.

    1. Most young millenial haven’t even got a clue about life. They’ve been indoctrinated since birth and don’t know any better. Blaming them is a pointless excercise.

  9. Imagine a remake of Titanic with the captain shouting “Person the boats, Person the boats”.
    All these “personginas” don’t even know what they’re promoting.

        1. That could be perceived as offensive to the obese big beautiful individuals.

  10. I would love to see the next generation rocket designed by an inclusive and diverse NASA: it would probably be a 2 L bottle rocket pressurized with a bike pump that explodes on the launch pad like an enema.

      1. grape soda and skittles: the diverse and inclusive NASA team will find themselves mystified as to the failure of the launch

    2. The NASA still exists?
      Why not to close it? We already have the Chinese to explore the Space. US is not needed any more.
      US was a nice country once, but I think it’s time for them to accept that they’re part of the past.

        3. Naked man covered in plastic wrap walks into a doctor’s office. The doctor looks at him and says, “I can clearly see you’re nuts.”

        7. “Naked man covered in plastic wrap walks into a doctor’s office. The doctor looks at him and says, “I can clearly see you’re nuts.”
          Naked man: “I want to get a second opinion.”
          Doctor: “Okay, you’re an asshole!”

      2. Won’t work. The Chinese need the Americans to create tech so they can copy, steal, plagiarize etc.

      3. Because NASA’s mission was publicly changed by 0bama from one of space exploration to muslim outreach.
        Specifically, NASA is tasked with 3 missions now:
        1) Promote STEM
        2) Foster International Relationships
        3) Muslim outreach
        It’s not about space. If it were, 0bama wouldn’t have any reason to have kicked $4.9 billion-and counting-to his crony corporatist buddy Elon Musk.

      1. You know the female engineers on the team would object to its utilitarian appearance and the token fag would want to add sparkly streamers.

        1. Eww why is it all covered in crumpled foil? it looks like a baked potato. I can’t even …

        3. Never make it there.
          NASA pre launch : Chief of Operations speaking to Head of NASA herself ” its taken months but we ve successfully calculated the trajectory for the rocket to the moon”
          Herself : but I feeel its not right. Use this one.
          And so the spacecrew went to their screaming doom into the sun.

      2. I can just imagine Captain Dindu sticking his head out of the next generation lunar lander and asking, “Where all da white women at?”

        1. They’re probably whipping together the latest version of that snappy gold foil on the lunar lander…

        2. Wait you mean the inside of the lunar helmet is coated in gold? Shieeeeet. Dis nigga be paying a visit to the pawn shop.

        3. I’d get in that thing and fly down to the surface of the moon, like Buzz…wouldn’t you. Fuck yeah. That cardboard at the top is air tight.

        6. Products of a public education. Everyone knows they live in caves, not trees.

        5. The lead singer of Green Day just said Trump is “literally Hitler”.

        2. Here’s a shot of the Apollo 16 lunar lander, along with the lunar rover. (That little golf cart-lookin’ thing.) I wonder how they got that rover into the lunar lander before they left? The guys probably went, “One, two, three – lift!” and hoisted it up and crammed it in there, in between a couple of those gold foil side panels. Guys were real men back then, I guess – not like the SJW pussies of today –
          http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-116-18578.jpg

        3. I might be missing the point here, but that’s pretty much how the rover was stored for transit to the moon. It didn’t make the return trip.
          Surprisingly, the rover weighed 463 pounds. Must’ve been that 60-70s borderline-steampunk technology.

        4. Hilarious picture.
          We should not be able to see any details on the lander in the shade
          ..
          But here we can clearly see underside parts of the lander that should be pretty much completely dark.
          We can see the rims on the cart which should also be very dark.

        9. Well that and the man made reflectors that are on the surface of the moon they any one in a university with access to basic bush leauge equipment can bounce a laser off of and time the ping back to earth….

        11. Actually they say the flag has a rod attaced to the pile that runs perpendicular …
          …
          Seems plausible.
          ….
          Other things tho??

        13. Here’s an interesting essay on the subject. The author fleshed it all out (Dave McGowan). Anybody who can read that entire essay, cross-check the facts, and come to the conclusion that the moon landings were on the level, while telling it to you with a straight face…well…if they yelled “Take a left!” in a theater that was on fire, I’d take a hard right without even thinking twice about it.
          You can save this essay to your phone or computer and check it out at your leisure; it’s a PDF file, and it is informative, a great read, and fucking hilarious as well –
          http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf

    4. They’ll have to include a white guy. Who else are they going to accuse of sexual harassment?

  11. It’s not just the words being used on college campuses, it’s the fact that every campus activity targets women, minorities, and LGBT people only! Every career fair, movie night, networking event, etc is designed to exclude white men.

    1. The answer is to stop participating in those things. I don’t. And career fairs are a major waste of your time. Its just a sham to get your personal info.

      1. Every career fair I’ve been to they give you free pens and tell you to apply on the company website.

    3. “It’s not that we are discriminating against straight, white males. It’s just that we are giving preference to women and people of color and the LGBT community.”
      What the hell is the difference? Chicken or Egg Hall of Fame candidate.

  13. What’s really funny is that the uber liberal non-profits who’ve spent decades pushing this shit are paying for it in their own organizations.
    These SJWs have no honor, no loyalties, and no sense. Colleges, non-profits, and real businesses, NONE are safe.
    This SJW bullshit doesn’t discriminate. These assholes will sue ANYONE with equal enthusiasm.
    HR managers get red pilled dealing with this shit. It’s the judges and attorneys that keep this nonsense going. NO ONE, no matter how liberal, wants to personally deal with quotas and EEO; they like the idea in the abstract, but not for themselves.
    Everyone is a heretic, but cannot speak heresy thanks to lawyers.

    1. It’s like the Great Purge in the Soviet Union: all of Stalin’s henchmen, the NKVD heads, the gulag commandants all met the firing squad.

  14. Meanwhile, back at the camp of the barbarians, the men are still men and the women are still women. The barbarians haven’t had the luxury of gender nuetrality or the promotion of weakness as a cultural norm. And, the barbarians, like so many sharks in the water can smell the weakness. The slaughter of the language, the eradication of masculinity from the vocabulary is as everyone here knows an attempt at the eradication of masculinity itself. Once the men are gone, the barbarians will come.

    1. Globalism is about to really kick into high gear, to the point where insulated, dumbass Americans are going to be thrown aside on their own turf in favor of more qualified, foreign competition. From foreign wives to petty, once laughable jobs, methinks the burn of offshore competition is going to really start hitting Americans at home. Wake up bishes lolol

      1. not more qualified, cheaper, meeker foreign competition. Otherwise, yeah, youre right. Future looks grim.

  15. I am so fucking happy to have avoided this bullshit. I’m 28 years old with six pack abs, six figures in savings, and my shit together with no degree. If/when people with degree discover this (perhaps by visiting my baller ass house that I’ll own outright in the next 36 months) you can see the shock and resentment on their faces. How can this fucking prole “be ALLOWED” to have all of this while activists live with their parents. Its just not fair.
    #Feelthebern

    1. Revel in their jealousy, young squire…your family members might be the most envious.

      1. Reduced to a cousin and former stepbrother (ha). If they are in your way fuckem. Drug addict shitheads, and then enablers. Lesson learned the hardway

    2. I went to a conservative religious college and never heard about any of this stuff until I was well into my twenties. I remember the first time I met a feminist, when I was twenty-six. I was like, “What is this strange creature? It’s hostile and has weird green hair. Gross.”

      1. There was the occasional odd feminist, growing up. I got my first real taste of SJW when I got fired as an intern for a school.
        Lots of women that I once went to HS with have since gone over the ledge with feminism. Straight dike-mode.

    3. I’m on the same path. I don’t think any of my friends know my financial situation. I’m not sure it’s wise to let your friends know your house is paid for–hell I don’t even want my family knowing, really. But by avoiding the corporate world, and the debt industry, and paying cash for almost everything and ignoring the BS they try to distract and capture everyone with, one has so much mental and financial freedom. Great job, keep it up, but realize in this backwards world, one cannot get too complacent. I’m gonna be really pissed if there is a movement when I am old to confiscate my 6 figure retirement account.

  16. I’m a university student in the STEM field. I have one year more until getting my bachelors. But studying in that particular university has taught me exactly what do white men have to do in order to fix every form of discrimination and misandry against them.
    Do’t get me wrong, we don’t have this shit here. Well, we do have it, but in really insignificant quantities, compared to what you have in the West. What’s worse is that we have crazy bitches and disappointed from life motherfuckers who mess with the students and purposefully make everything magnitudes more difficult than it actually is. And do you know what happens as a result? The students leave the university. They either go to another one or stop their education and start building careers.
    The university administration is full of desperation. They restructured the university curriculum, and now the most sought after profiles have twice more students than they used to have when I started studying. They got to the point where they are willing to take students who failed the high school final exams. They basically tell the professors to turn a blind eye to some students who fail the university exams that we have each semester, and let them through. And can you guess what happens as a result? Even more students are leaving the university. It’s like in game. They can’t game us properly, we sense desperation, we leave.
    I’m still there, because I have one year until graduation. But it taught me that the we don’t need the government, the bitchy employers, HRs etc. They need us. if we don’t like something, we can just leave. If most men who work important jobs (blue collar, engineers etc.) could act together, the change that we seek would happen in a matter of days, if not hours.

  17. You guys want to see the problem in a nutshell. Here is a quote from the article:
    “Words have meanings; their definitions are as fixed as our genders, and do not waver on a weekly basis.”
    BZZZZZZ Incorrect. Try again. Here is the issue. In an article pointing out that words are being revalued and definitions like our gender is wavering we get a quote that that is not the way it works. That would be like me writing an article saying that people need to stop stealing from the perspective that stealing isn’t a thing.
    Wake up boys. Words, meanings and yes gender is in fact fluid and can be revalued. The reason that feminists are winning this war is because they have seen that this is possible and began using it as a tool while the other side of that debate, rather than do anything productive, has its head firmly planted in its own sphincter saying that the very thing they are complaining about isn’t fucking possible.
    Get in this fight. How? Here is an example
    Feminists: We can change the very definition of words, gender and truth
    Men: Uh, that’s not possible
    Feminists: look at this barrista with no gender who can sue you for using a pronoun
    This is exactly what we have been doing. Let us do this in a correct way
    Feminists: We can change the very definition of words, gender and truth
    Men: Yes, it is fluid. However, defining them as we have has brought order to the state of nature, has made the world an amazing thing to behold and brought true happiness to people. So, yes, we can make things out to be what we want them to be, but lets double down on the stuff that works like traditional masculine values. Hyper-Masculinity or bust!
    Feminists: YAY!

      1. If men, instead of bitching like women that the world is being devalued or revalued in a way that is both oppressive to them as well as detrimental to the whole, would find their fucking sacks and start acting like men these problems would go away.
        How many men have complained about the way the world is today because of feminists but then went to work in jeans and a t shirt? Got themselves out of shape? Use language like they are half brain dead? Second guess themselves and their decisions? Try to hide from adversity to play safe game?
        It is quite clear that the feminists are correct about the fact that values themselves can be devalued and revalued. They have proven it already. We let them because we didn’t think it was possible. Now we are going to bitch? That just hands them the win by handing over the last bit of our masculinity. Want to fight back: stop being a faggot. In a nutshell that is the entire directive.

        1. Hmm… today I am at work wearing jeans and T-Shirt. Can I get a pass because its Casual Friday?

        2. depends on what you want out of life and how genuine you are being to yourself. I don’t care one way or another. BUt if you are one of the people who are demanding a return to traditional values while, at the same time allowing yourself to be mired in modernity I would say you are being disingenuous

        5. Look, I am not going to judge you. I love the modern world. It works well for me. A return to the values of the 1950’s would be good for the world in general, hell a return to the values of the 1880’s would be good for the world in general, but 2016 suits me just fine. I have found my niche and I am enjoying it.

        6. Honestly mate I’m not bothered. I actually am consistently the best dressed person in my office. While I am in t-shirt and jeans, everything fits well on my athletic body. Think Hugh Jackman rather than Homer Simpson.
          That said, I take your point. At my next job (coming soon), nobody there well see me dressed like this. People really do judge you by your appearance and for respect, I think this is important.
          So due regards to you for sticking to your principles and raising this point.

        7. I feel the same way about well fitting clothing and I know it brings in the women. When I started my current job I did exactly what you said you were going to do. My secretary (we still call them secretaries here) laughing asked me if I have a suit that I sleep in. Not one person in my office could imagine me dressed down, being anything less than formal, etc. I have carefully crafted the image of who I want to be even though it flies against the popular sentiment.
          I don’t think everyone has to or even should, it is basically about what each man wants. For my part, I find that it has yielded great rewards to me.

        8. Don’t ou work in IT or something like that? Does it matter what you guys wear you’re still computer nerds!

        10. It doesn’t count if it’s not freshly squeezed out of an orphan just this morning.

    2. Gender isn’t a thing and wasn’t until feminists declared it a thing in the 1960’s. Prior to that it had only to do with noun classification in a lot of indo-european languages. Sex, is not fluid. Gender “is” because we’ve allowed them to foist a meaning on it that was never the intent of the word. Letting them play fast and loose with the language is the problem, imo. That’s all they do and the very minute you say “OK, I’ll agree that gender is fluid, etc” they’ll simply switch the meaning again to something entirely different. They work this way to keep people off balance and to avoid accountability, so you’re not going to win that argument you posited with them. They won’t say “YAY!” rather, and this is born out by years of experience dealing with these thugs, they’ll redefine every word in your answer and thus you’ll continue to be a “shitlord” and they’ll continue to tear down whatever it is that they’re trying to tear down.
      Only rational people would say “YAY”. They’re not rational. This is why trying to revert to original definitions infuriates them so much and why they “trigger” when you reject words like “gender”. They know that if words do have meaning that you’re not going to waver on, their game is up and they can’t win.
      Example that I use all the time.
      Them: “Gender identity is fluid, a transgender person can choose its gender at will”
      Me: “Gender is a false construct. Sex is unchanging. You either have XY or XX chromosomes, or some variant (which would be a genetic anomaly). You can identify however you wish, but end of the day, you’re either XX or XY and your sex remains the same, no matter how much of your dick you lob off, bud”
      Them: “Triggered!” (runs from room screaming insults)
      OUR problem has been that we DO allow them to have fluid language and are constantly playing catch up. They are a constantly moving goalpost, there’s no need to allow them to dictate the frame of the debate.

      1. We don’t disagree here, but the fact that they ARE moving the goalpost means that the goalpost is infact moveable. One look at the youth of America today should show that fairly clearly. By denying that their tactics are legitimate and dangerous and just hoping, what?, that god shorts shit out we might as well all just cut our dicks off and let rosie odonell peg us.
        The tactic men have used is simply not working because so many men refuse to admit that at the end of the day feminists are in fact correct.
        Gender is fluid. Words are fluid. They can change. The question is what ought we do with this information. Feminists want to take this information and destroy the very thing that has built the world as we know it. Instead of hiding from the frightening fact that we need to value things we should be responding that the reason they were valued the way they were in the first place is that it works and if anything we need to double down.
        Anyone who sits on the sidelines and simply says that feminists are wrong is part of the problem. They are correct about their ability, only wrong in what they should do with it. Giving women this knowledge would be like giving a 13 year old a Ferrari. Yes, he can probably drive it, but no he shouldn’t.

        1. The goalpost is moveable because WE agree to allow it to be moved, by allowing THEM the ability to frame the debate using language that we know for a fact is erroneous.
          Their tactics ARE effective and DO work, no question. Just like when you get in a fight with a girl and you accept her emotional ever changing premise as the valid frame. You’re not going to out-emotion a woman, and you’re never going to win the word game with the Left, since it too is all emotion based.
          Gender is not fluid, because gender is not a thing except insofar as WE allow their use of that false word to hold meaning. If they turned around tomorrow and chanted “Gender is now Glombox, and Glombox is so fluid that we can justify raping children using it”, that doesn’t mean that we have to accept it. Only by accepting their shift in language do they eventually erode away all sense in the world. We don’t have to buy into that.
          Words are fluid, yes, clearly that’s how languages evolve over time. But they’re not contextually fluid on the spur of the moment, at least not legitimately so, when it comes to huge overarching concepts. That’s what they’re doing, redefining words on the fly and never sticking to one definition once you buy into their framework. That’s all you’re suggesting we do, and it has failed time and time again. It is PRECISELY why we’re losing.
          Instead of hiding from the frightening fact that we need to value things we should be responding that the reason they were valued the way they were in the first place is that it works and if anything we need to double down.
          You’re mistake here is, I think, believing that they actually want us to agree. They don’t. They don’t give a flying fuck about transdoodles, or gays or any other pet minority. Their purpose, from the top of their so called movement, is deconstruction of society and, ultimately, replacing it with their own version of society as defined by a Utopian Marxist philosophy. You can double down all the live long day regarding accepting their definitions by pointing out the utility of the former definition, and they just won’t give a fuck.
          This is why Pinochet eventually had to shoot them en masse. And now Chile has turned around and become a decent country in the aftermath. The left does NOT give a flying fuck about reality.
          We’re not going to agree with them enough on word fluidity for them to care, and insisting that the previous generations used whatever-fluid thing because it worked will plonk off their skull. They just don’t fucking care if it worked or not, they are dogmatic, so all you’re doing by stating the clear fact that the previous concepts worked is reciting, in their minds, heresy. They respond like all religious fanatics once you do that.
          You say that our tactics are failing, but I counter that with the fact that people are just only NOW, in the last ten years or so, starting to reassert the primacy of using correct language. Before that everybody was just agreeing and going along to get along with the Left. THAT is how they have won thus far. Our coming out and stating “No, you don’t get to reclassify your sex by calling it ‘gender’” is a very, very recent as far as coming from the intellectual centers of our “movement”. I think actually that it’s working. Take away their one tool, language manipulation, and they have nothing left outside of just pulling the gun on us directly, which they want to avoid at all costs since their system requires consent and buy in. If anything they’ve (rightly) learned from totalitarians in the past that drawing the gun is almost always fatal to their movement.

        2. I have to tell you GOJ….for making an incorrect argument you do so quite eloquently.
          What you are right about is that we have let them do this. They can’t sneak out the gate while the guards are paying attention, much less when they are looking for them. They simply don’t have the will or the strength to do so.
          However, trying to assert some notion that there is some kind of absolute value while at the same time acknowledging that the value has changed is just done in bad faith. I think you have a little too much of how you wish the world was and not enough of how the world actually is in there. It is a symptom of our age….for my part I think you are making an incredible mistake here. However, I know I can’t convince you of that and despite it I’ve grown quite fond of you.
          In the meantime, while I suggest changing the conversation it is more of an analogy if you will. The way to change the conversation, and here is another point I believe you and I will agree, is to start asserting that masculinity. The conversation happens when they realize it makes them happier. It will slowly choke off their power and influence.
          We can disagree as to the metaphysical reality until the cows come home, but the prescription is the same no matter which way the ball bounces….so that’s good….the prescription is for men to start acting like men. Masculine energy, intelligence and power is what built this world and will rebuild it as soon as it is reasserted. I think all men should stop, imagine the world as perfect in their minds, how things would be if everything was right, figure out their role in that perfect world and, despite consequence start acting the part. It is the societal analogous to “dress for the job you want not the job you have”

        3. However, trying to assert some notion that there is some kind of absolute value while at the same time acknowledging that the value has changed is just done in bad faith.
          There is the crux of the issue right there. I’m not saying Gender isn’t a fluid word, I agree with you that it is. I agree that the reality is that they can and do redefine “Gender” on the fly and that by doing so they ARE winning the culture. We don’t disagree on that at all, you’re correct.
          The problem is that you and others accept and use the word Gender because you were taught from the 1970’s forward to eschew the word Sex and substitute Gender. Sex is a binary word, it means XX or XY (or better put, male or female since I know there are some true genetic mishaps at times, like XYY or whatever that actually do deserve their own classification). Gender, as you note, is not binary and I agree. I’m not saying that Gender used to be XYZ and trying to redefine it to a previous era after tacitly accepting it as a valid word because yes that is acting in bad faith as you suggest, rather I’m stating that Gender is the wrong word altogether and stating that I reject it out of the gate even if they told me it means only Sex.
          Solution: Stop using the word Gender (and any other ambiguous fluid, ever changing word) and stop accepting it as a valid word in the course of a discussion with the Left. They have no way to fight that other than ad hominem. Big hairy deal, I say.
          Yes, agree 100% with asserting more masculine energy. I do it all the time in real life. And when I show up looking and acting like a traditional male in a traditionally “sexy” type, and hold to my principles/guns, and sway women with charm, they (and by proxy, their Leftist beta orbiters) do in fact move to my side of the debate in short order. Our problem in the past is allowing them to insert fluid words into our vocabulary as acceptable words for binary words, which do exist for meta concepts like Sex, for precisely the reasons you outline.

        4. Again we are mostly in agreement. Especially in the sense of showing up with masculine energy. You win the argument without words there….and THAT my friend is the crux. All words are fluid. Yes, sex is a binary word. But it is still a word. Language itself is the faulty party. Words like Male, female, good, evil, dictatorship, fanny can and do frequently mean different things because of the users intention. Language is a funny thing. Holding on to a notion that some words are so powerful that they have an meaning anchoring them for all time doesn’t acknowledge the intrinsic complications and failures of language itself and the way it is used. I offer, in substitute, a non language alternative.
          The reality is malleable. We know that because it is always changing. If we bend reality in one way the language will follow suit. What we have allowed is for reality to be bent towards language rather than reality being bent by will and language being bent to accommodate that reality. Holding on to a notion that a word like “sex” is any better than a word like “gender” is the very heart of mistakes. The problem is that all words are inherently faulty because words are shaped by will and will changes over time — occasionally very long time.
          The cart got put all in front of the horse. It is important to realize that by trying to define words, by insisting on definitions of words, you are building your castle in quicksand. Rather, as you notice in your own life, and as has been the masculine tradition since the dawn of times, reality needs to be controlled by actions, not words, and then the words will accommodate. When men stopped acting then feminine will to redefine words shaped reality. Trying to undefined their definitions and get back to the old definitions is the exact wrong way to do it.

        5. I’m not trying to undefine definitions. That’s what I don’t think I’m communicating well here. I’m not undefining a single thing about the word “Gender”. Rather, I rejecting the word “Gender” as a valid word altogether that I simply will neither use nor entertain as valid.
          The Left used Gender for a specific reason, and playing in that sandbox is hazardous to us, as can be seen in current culture. I don’t allow them that tool and take it away from them. When they can’t accuse me of hypocrisy for trying to redefine Gender, and when they note that I don’t accept their word substitution, they become powerless, in my experience.
          Shit, homie, I’ve even went so far as to do this in real life on the job. When I modify a data table schema, and it stipulates “Gender” as a column value, I rename the column to “Sex” and update the code that uses that table to reflect that change. When I see String variables called “String Gender;” I do a mass Replace with “String Sex;” in the code. Little subversive steps, but they don’t go unnoticed.

        7. I don’t think anyone is arguing that changing the language doesn’t affect society; I think that is precisely the point the article was making.
          If college students are taught that an attractive female is one that is covered in tattoos and metal and weighs at least 200 pounds, then they can condition men OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME to accept that as attractive.
          The question is: IS it attractive? Is there a difference between being “androgyne” and “androgenous” (2 of the 71 facebook gender options)? Is meekness and submissiveness good? I would posit the answer to all of these is no. I suppose it comes down to the bigger argument of whether there is universal or subjective truth, which is basically unanswerable, but there is a huge difference between saying that the Romans were wrong in their beliefs of strength and force and saying that the Romans were defeated with alternative tactics and guile.
          Also, while, as you say, language can evolve over 1000 years, and thoughts on what is good and right can change over long periods (ie slavery was seen as perfectly acceptable in practically all societies in the past, and in practically none today), that is a completely different thing from saying that Bruce Jenner, an undeniable man a decade ago, is now a woman. I think most of us would admit ideas of right and wrong, and even language, evolves over the long term. But no one in 1500 was arguing that a slave was a green blade of grass. Unless they were drinking that absinthe.
          The statement you questioned was that language can change on a weekly basis. That is ENTIRELY different than language evolving over time to adapt as society changes.

        8. “Rather, I rejecting the word “Gender” as a valid word altogether that I simply will neither use nor entertain as valid.”
          Validity itself is man made. Example of a valid argument:
          Rabbits are elephants
          Elephants are televisions
          Therefor Rabbits are televisions.
          This is, as a point of fact, a valid argument. I am not saying that gender is a valid word. I am saying that words themselves are not valid, gender, sex and, for that matter elephants and evil included. You are choosing an invalid word that conforms to your world view instead of choosing an invalid word that conforms to an antithetical world view. I applaud you for that because you are making a choice in how you want the world to be (and, for that matter, one that counts infinitely more than voting) but it is in the choice and the action that you find the real worth, not in the word.
          Yes, little subversive steps bit by bit. But I caution you in thinking that one word has meaning and another word is just a human creation (whether to invalidate that meaning or not).. No words have meaning that aren’t given to them.
          While you are denying them the tool of their constructed word and while that does have some effect, you are still allowing them another tool: you thinking that there is an underpinning reality to some words is their tool as well. They are playing both sides of this game. They are redefining words because the meanings are fluid and then once the word becomes what they want it to be they are locking it in by suggesting this was a true meaning that was overlooked in the first place.
          Choice and action. Those are your weapons. Put no faith in women, words or wyverns

        9. A lot of truth here, I just wanted to point out one small thing:
          “They don’t give a flying fuck about transdoodles, or gays or any other pet minority.”
          Let me quote RuPaul directly: “For me, it was never about being a woman at all. It was always about ‘f-you’ to society”
          Even the gay transdoodle itself doesn’t believe this garbage. He likes being a disrupter, and found a way to make it extremely profitable (as did Bruce). By the way, RuPaul is getting an Emmy or something, but isn’t dressing up as a woman to receive it because “I only do that if someone is paying me.”

        10. “What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning.” –George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
          Let the meaning choose the word. If you wish to convey whether someone is an XY man or an XX woman, you should choose the word sex. Otherwise one is being vague or confusing. If someone tells me a person is a male transgender, I honestly don’t know what that means. Is it a dude in a dress? Chicks with dicks? Granny trannies?
          Look, I understand the meanings of words mean different things to different people. In conversation I will OFTEN ask someone to explain what they mean when they use a word, as they are not using it the way it is generally accepted (kudos, Inigo Montoya). For example, I OFTEN have to ask “What do you mean when you say you don’t like *LIBERAL* policies?” The purpose of language is to convey ideas, and when you use a word like liberal, it’s not clear at all what you’re conveying, because that word has been so misused. Was Thomas Jefferson a liberal? Martin Luther? Hillary Clinton?
          The point is to not use vague words like gender, which don’t convey anything. Hell, if gender is really just describing how you are feeling in a fluid way, then just say “How do you feel today”? But don’t misuse a word where another will do a better job of communicating your idea. That’s all we (and I think the article) are saying here. Don’t use particular individuals. Use kid, punk, man, fat bitch with the nose ring, hipster with the ironic $50 t shirt.
          Be specific and precise with your language.

        12. “they have nothing left outside of just pulling the gun on us directly”.
          They also CAN’T do that because they are “triggered” by the mere mention of guns.

          Instead,they get politicians to send in the cops (the “fascists” they hate) to do the shooting for them.
          That way they are buffered with internal plausible deniability when people get killed for their precious utopia.

      2. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e9678e0b6aae23ca422a78b265fe43f12f7a4500000bf1a3241c7363f456e539.jpg
        This isn’t just a style. The abuses that feminists have committed against language have led to this. This is the new masculinity they are trying to create and they are doing a damn good job at it. They are using language as their primary weapon. If we deny the power that this tactic has, if we try to hold onto some notion that sex in unchanging, then we are feeding their ability to do this.
        They will, as point of fact, given enough time, basically burn natural testosterone out of the gene pool and you can x and y all you want and this will be the case. Rather than saying sex in unchanging the argument should be that we OUGHT not change it. Otherwise, we might as well just give in.

        2. It is just more of the problem. It isn’t unchanging. Look around. It has changed. If something changes than it is changeable. When something changes and you want to change it back, saying it is unchanging is not going to be of any help.

        3. The guy in that photo was born flaming. He could be speaking Swahili in a concrete block house with a mud floor, and he’d still be swishy.

        4. It’s not just the guy, it is the fact that that is being promoted as cool. People often forget the importance of “cool”

        6. The more accurate point would be to say:
          Well, you say ‘sex’ is changing? Okay, then we have no agreement over the word ‘sex’, ergo this discussion is pointless. So let’s discard the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’, because we are not really having a real debate here, only a fight over word definitions.
          So let me instead use the word ‘dorkadork’. I define this word to denote the observation that there are humans with so-called ‘penises’ and some with so-called ‘vaginas’. I define this word to also denote that typically, the ones with ‘penises’ want to engage something we could call ‘spankispank’ with the ones who have vaginas. Why is this so? I don’t know, but it is an undeniable observation and whatever words you use for it, it does not change.

        7. ” It isn’t unchanging. Look around. It has changed.”
          Sex hasn’t changed. Look around. It hasn’t and never will. Your man in a dress is still 100% male. Do any medical mutilation possible to a man, “basically burn natural testosterone out of the gene pool,” and the male sex of the man remains. So, you have the below completely reversed:
          “Rather than saying sex in unchanging the argument should be that we OUGHT not change it. Otherwise, we might as well just give in.”
          If we concede that it is possible for XX to become XY, or XY to become XX, then they’ve already lost and we have no ground to stand on.
          The real problem is you accept that “gender” is even a thing, and use it the same way the Enemy does.
          “Words, meanings and yes gender is in fact fluid and can be revalued. “

      4. On the college campuses I work at, seldom do people try to ‘correct my speech’ as in the example, chair person instead of chairman. I attribute this to holding frame from the start and also to the fact that if they are speaking with me in the first place they probably need a problem solved. In the rare instance they do I simply say, “no, I meant chairman’ and then continue making sense.

    3. Wow… what a great comment!
      I don’t use gender I use sex. Why? Because I fucking love it!

        1. I got two chicks on the menu for this weekend… One’s Eastern European and the other’s Chinese… An RoK reader’s wet dream.
          Now if I can just get them together…

        2. ha. I have one for the time being, a Russian, but the weather is nice and there is magic in the air.

        3. Women are like buses… you try really hard to get one and then a whole bunch come at once…(ooh neat double entendre!)

        4. ha, yes they are. And very nice with the double entendre. You can also say that once you get on there are 6 homeless dudes and it looks like one of them might have taken a shit

    4. “Gender” is itself a bullshit word invented by a leftist. Use the proper word “sex” instead and watch the SJW heads explode.

      1. It is more than just a bullshit word. Yes it was invented. Yes it was invented for a reason. However, here is the problem: the other words were invented too. This is how language evolves and it is how language has evolved since the beginning of man. Thinking otherwise just makes it easier for them

        2. Here GOJ is right. If you take on their language they will always come out ahead. In effect I don’t disagree with a lot of things being said here, I am simply pointing to the cause of the symptom.
          As I have said a couple of times, it is not by engaging in the debate that a victory is possible, only by reasserting a hypermasculinity and doing so overtly despite the consequences on a large and global scale is the battle won. It is won because as the tide shifts, even a little bit, towards those values the women will be happier and more fulfilled so the second 10% is easier than the first and the third easier yet.
          The mistake is thinking that it is this way because that is the way it is and any attempt to change it is just ruining the real for the false. There is no real. There is what works and what doesn’t work. A masculine world works better than a feminine world. But pretending it is going to eventually work out that way because that is how it IS in fact rather than just understanding that we have to make it this way because it is the way things work best is not helpful.

        3. As I have said a couple of times, it is not by engaging in the debate that a victory is possible, only by reasserting a hypermasculinity and doing so overtly despite the consequences on a large and global scale is the battle won. It is won because as the tide shifts, even a little bit, towards those values the women will be happier and more fulfilled
          so the second 10% is easier than the first and the third easier yet.
          Yes, but to do so, we need to gain more men in the movement. Me and you and a handful of others alone, be manly men, isn’t going to change shit at all. So we have to gain “converts” for lack of a better term, to join the movement and learn to be masculine then be masculine in the real world. Ok, great. But we’re not going to do that without a firm set of values that are masculine being presented to make converts.
          If you’re suggesting ignoring the Left and being masculine men and society will orient towards our world view, I agree. I’m stating that to increase our number of recruits by acting as virtual “recruiters” for the movement, we have to talk in plain, distinct language to those we hope to recruit.
          I find that openly rejecting the term “Gender” is quite popular on “normal” websites. It gets people interested in other things I have to say. So in that sense, I think blatantly rejecting the Left’s fluid words is a great recruitment tool.

    5. So.. when a feminist proclaims something it becomes true? I don’t follow. Bruce Jenner is still a dude.

      1. Right, that’s my whole beef with his argument. Ok, we say “Gender IS fluid!” and then “But having only two genders worked so well in the past” is a losing strategy. They’ll just scream at you and you’ll have no recourse because by agreeing with their framework and “fluid language” you’ve lost any base of support regarding evidence you present against their current definition.
        “Yeah, well so fucking what shitlord, this new fluid Gender works too!” is their answer, despite all evidence to the contrary.
        They are dogmatic and basically the same kind of person that they accused religious fanatics of being in the 1500’s. They don’t care about our position.

        1. You can agree to fluid language without agreeing to fluid reality.
          You say ‘masculinity’. They say ‘masculinity is fluid’. Then you counter ‘Well, then you mean something different by masculinity than I do, because I refer to an unalterable observable thing in reality.’
          It is our attachment to words like ‘man’ and ‘masculinity’ that makes us weak. We are trying to defend the word instead of defending the real thing that we actually mean.
          In my eyes, let them have the words and play with them however they like. Let them massacre the words. We then simply come up with new words to describe what we mean, because underneath the words, the reality has not changed through a ‘redefinition’.
          To say ‘man is now defined as female’ does not in any way reestablish any real-world relationships between the sexes. It just means that the word ‘man’ no longer means what it meant before.
          You can, interestingly, catch some feminists doing the same. You say ‘feminists are disgusting manhating harpies’. And they will defend the word ‘feminist’ to the death, because of what ‘feminism’ ‘originally’ meant.
          And I then say: Well, stop defending the word ‘feminism’. Acknowledge what these people did and what that meant to you, instead of clinging to a word that once described these things.

      2. It is not just true or not true. Feminists and academics have slowly (not “this is now a woman”) been changing the value of words. Is Bruce Jenner a dude? Well, depends on how you define “dude” Yeah, to us it seems stupid, but keep teaching it that way for 3 more generations and there won’t be anyone alive who remembered it any other way.
        This is essentially how the jews ended the roman empire. When Christ starts talking about the meek inheriting the earth, and the value of charity and humility what was he doing? Essentially he is shaming the Romans. Christian values are the absolute direct opposite of the values of the Roman empire. Keep pushing that line for 1000 years and boom. Good no longer equals strong or mighty. Good equals pious and meek. That’s long term war fightin’ strategy. We are in the first 3 generations of it. Just keep denying it exists for another 10 generations and see where the world is. I will be dead and I have nor want any progeny so it makes no difference to me. I am an impartial observer.

        1. I’m not sure what to think of that argument, but will ponder this a while. The Jews vs. Roman opposing philosophy is an interesting point, though I’m not sure how related to the current censorship. Perhaps Lord Rothschild is sitting up in a cave planning all this from his high tower, after all.

        2. Good point about ‘the meek inheriting the earth’. It seems to me that most people do not grasp this simple belief that is so deeply ingrained in Christianity.

        3. Yup. Once people get over this silly obsession with a juvinille concept of God and realize that, like everything else in the world, Christianity was reactive to the world around it it becomes much easier to see the arc despite its milenia long trjectory

        4. When I was in Hawaii, still a hardcore atheist, my father (also atheist) took me to a little chapel made out of wood, on a hill overviewing a big forest and the sea.
          That chapel happened to be full of people who were singing in unison. I looked at my dad and said: Now I get it. Now I get why people love religion. If it makes them come together like this and sing this beautifully and hear it reverberate in that magnificent little wooden chapel, it is great.
          Then a few years later, I wanted to get that experience again here in Munich. So I went to a church 2 or 3 times. And our churches are big conrete stone-walled monuments. Scary and oppressive, but impressive nonetheless.
          And there would stand a preacher and tell everybody how miserable human existence is and that we all must bow down and that we are filthy sinners and that God must release and save us.
          I was deeply disgusted by it. It just felt wrong on so many levels. I thought to myself: I came here to be uplifted after a bad day and what do I get? I get crushed and humiliated and told that I am pathetic for being human.

        5. I can understand that. I think there is a lot to religion and to God. That said, the general conception of it doesn’t increase in sophistication past 6 years old.

        6. I think the mistake is to distinguish between God and non-God.
          I wouldn’t even call this chapel and the singing ‘godly’. Just joyful and nice.
          Tell me, where are the feminists and atheists coming together to sing and enjoy each others company in a humble natural setting?

        7. As a side note: the stone wall scary monuments also served a practical purpose, no different then the togetherness does. Just a purpose for a different time and a different peoples.
          What gets me are the people who are so hesitant. I mean, at what point do the people insisting on an objective measure of truth underlying reality stop and say “ok we are totally getting our asses whipped in this culture war, lets reevaluate our beliefs and strategies”

        9. I think the problem is really the attachment to words like ‘man’ and ‘masculinity’ etc.
          In a way, patriarchy shot itself dead. Think of it. The ‘fathers’ shamed us into ‘being masculine’ and ‘being a man’. Feminists then, instead of attempting to fight this, simply said: ‘Yes. Be masculine and be a man. But here’s what masculinity and man REALLY means.’
          I think that this is a very common female manipulation method of the male ‘rationality’.
          Basically, you have men who adhere to principles. But they, more often than not, are not really connected with the real meaning behind their principles. They just ‘want to be manly’, without having any fixed idea what ‘manly’ means. They basically just want to be accepted and feel that if they can conform to the word ‘manly’, they will get that. So all a woman needs to do is say ‘It is manly to do XX’ (be my slave) and bam.
          The female will use a man’s ‘rationality’ against him. So once more, I see this more as another calling towards embracing instincts and abandoning attachments to language.
          A man who follows his instincts and intuitions does not rely on words or beliefs. He just does what he does. People can throw words and language and beliefs at him all they want, but it will never change who he is, because he has separated his true ‘personality’ from beliefs about who he has to be. He simply is.
          In a way, I wonder whether male rationality is not indeed the product of female scheming.

        11. Yupers which is why I advocate choice and action over trying to rationalize. The adherence to the word has lead men down this wild twisting path where they are trying to justify masculinity with chromosome distinction. This is so backwards I don’t even know where to start but it is the corner they painted themselves into. Just some of the ways, though no where nearly exhaustive as a list, that this fails is that it is a run and hide tactic, it is a put up your hands and say but XX XY. Bullshit, this takes away from the work on oneself that masculinity actually takes. Further, it is a reduction to some kind of genetic markers, again defined by man, as a last ditch effort to save their adherence to words that had no meaning in the first place. Also, it takes the humanity out of the equation and once again reduces man to merely animal. If anyone wants to argue with my that the world we found in nature can’t be understood and then manipulated by the will of man they are free to take an airplane to the Panama Canal and have that discussion with me there.

        12. “The adherence to the word has lead men down this wild twisting path where they are trying to justify masculinity with chromosome distinction. This is so backwards I don’t even know where to start but it is the corner they painted themselves into.”
          Absolutely agree.
          Like I like to say: If you need to justify your wish for freedom, you are always one argument away from slavery.

    6. the manosphere tends to be quite stubborn in insisting on describing reality in an undifferentiated way. Feminists on the other hand tend to do the exact opposite and assume that reality and social reality are one and the same thing. Since social reality is something it is perfectly possible to change / impact upon, then feminists are as you say right, not least insofar as the fluidity of language is also the fluidity of the legal and institutional nature of society. So yes, insofar as we are discussing reality on those terms then the feminists are right, and we need to be entering the value debate pretty much as you describe. But there are also dangers in doing so, if in the process we end up embracing foucauldian relativism or derridean ‘all is text’ etc. Nativist positions with respect to biological difference, innate brain modules etc, are also perfectly real, and as yet (and I emphasise the caveat) something that social reality has a limited impact upon – unless they really are spiking our water with oestregen mimicking chemicals or something. I do agree though that ultimately this is a debate about values and arguing ‘from nature’ won’t in itself win that debate

      1. You are right. Though I would argue that is Foucaut or Derrida understood their own work they would have been better off. I worked for Derrida for a few months and I will tell you this: the man was frighteningly brilliant

        1. That must have been interesting – in the US or France? Didn’t he do your head in?

        2. In France. To be fair there were like 100 of us doing bs work but it was very cool. He was frighteningly brilliant and understood things on a level that words were incapable of expressing which, I believe, informed his ideas about the maliability of reality through grammar and the such.
          That said, you are right about the extremes. The problem is that reactions are always coming in the form of the opposite and rarely make exception for understanding something that isn’t binary. Finding a correct, helpful and meaningful middle path here would be incredibly valuable but it is so volatile that I assume anything of value will be met with either apathy or scorn.
          As for my head, it was done in long before that.

        3. must have been an experience to have studied under him. I am definitely not a fan though, even if I am imperfectly familiar with his work. The guy may have been brilliant but his thinking and influence doesn’t seem to have been helpful exactly – well pretty helpful to feminists keen to deconstruct / dissolve western phallocratic metaphysics / binaries etc. Feminists were never going to turn down a concept like phallogocentrism were they?
          If we’re talking about extremes (or extremism for that matter) as a problem, you could for example think of feminism / neo-masculinity 🙂 as thesis / anti-thesis, so what might follow would be a synthesis: except that kind of resolution seems to be precisely what Derrida is trying to avoid. I am not claiming to understand Derrida (are we even supposed to?) but his legacy is perhaps – as some have accused – a somewhat destructive even nihilistic one (is Derrida where you get you’re nihilism from btw?).
          I was actually reading something not so long ago that argued that Derrida was influenced – amongst other things – by kabbalist thinking, particularly with regard to the idea that “reality is a text” and in the idea that “there is nothing outside the text” (c.f. Moshe Idel / Sanford Drob). He’s certainly full of fascinating – if always difficult – ideas, but there is something about indeterminacy of meaning which lends itself better to nihilism than to coming up with solutions for the kind of problems we’re addressing here.

        4. To say that he was influenced by anything is in a way incorrect. He had a fluid knowledge of pretty much everything ever written. It was frightening. He was influenced by everything he knew and he knew everything.
          Also, you can’t blame people for their legacy always and, afaic, he legacy is far from done. Again, it goes back to the question of tools. He pulled back a curtain and revealed some pretty crazy things. If the only thing a hammer has ever been used for is crushing testicles we would think that hammers are terrible. This is why I advocate not hanging on to an antiquated notion of static truth underpinning reality and, instead, take these tools given to use by Derrida, by Foucault and by Nietzsche and start using them.
          we aren’t even losing this culture war because we aren’t even participating.

        5. I’ve actually advocated something similar in the past myself. Not with regard to Derrida, because I’m not familiar enough with his work, and because I’m afraid I have a instinctive dislike for all of those french superstar intellectuals who seemed more concerned to dazzle and mystify than to elucidate: I don’t really buy that Lacan had to write as he did for any reason relating to apprehension of his ideas, even if I can appreciate that there might be a rationale for Derrida writing in such a painful fashion (playful? fuck off :). But leaving Derrida aside (perhaps because of ineptitude with respect to the tools he place in our hands) I am very much in favour of taking tools that have been used as you suggest to crush our collective testicles (and remember Derrida was a feminist and beloved by feminists on both side of the atlantic) but I am far more interested in Foucauld / Nietzsche – personally I think the genealogical methods could be used very productively to take apart much of the progressive deceit. But then that probably wouldn’t go down to well as some kind of research proposal – I know that, because I proposed to do one once upon a time.
          Of course if critical methods are designed to de-stabilise notions of truth and the determinacy / presence of meaning etc, then any adoption of such methods may compromise one’s core position, perhaps. So one has to be careful perhaps

      2. The funny fact is that in order to ‘change reality’ by ‘changing language’, language has to have real associations in the first place.
        For instance, you could say ‘borkmorkdum does not exist’. It would not change reality nor social reality, because there is no association with ‘borkmorkdum’.
        So, basically, you say ‘masculinity does not exist’. But in order for this assertion to mean anything, you indeed do need to have an association with ‘masculinity’, that is then denied its existence.
        It is like with ‘God does not exist’. Well, how can you say that, without having a certain idea in your head about what ‘God’ is?
        So let’s say we were living in an indigenous tribe that has no language. And we would observe ‘masculinity’, as most of us here understand it. And we would seek to deny it. How could we deny it without developing language? And how could we deny it without, in this language, denoting that observed thing as ‘masculinity’ and pointing with a finger at it, to then say ‘it does not exist’?
        So basically, to say that something does not exist, you first need to point your finger at this thing that does not exist, so that people can know what exactly it is that does not exist.
        Paradox. 🙂

        1. Interesting comment. One might suspect that you’ve been influenced by (directly or otherwise) Wittgentstein’s Philosophical Investigations where Ludwig takes issue with the whole business of an Augustianian conception of language as involving ‘pointing’ to things (the ostensive) and naming them etc. Except here you’re pointing out that with things like masculinity, God etc. there is nothing to point at, and should there be a thing one can point at one would then be unable to deny it’s existence.
          I think the problem here for language philosophy is that this idea of language as referential to something that exists in the real world (or for that matter in the mind of God / in the realm of Platonic forms etc) has carefully taken apart ever since Saussurean structuralism recognised that definition wise words refer to other words rather than to things in themselves, and there is no (easy?) getting beyond this. That’s true also with respect to things like God and masculinity etc. So becoming aware of the role of language (I appreciate you’ve moved on from language philosophy) is about becoming aware of the role of how one can never quite get to the thing itself. Wittgenstein helpfully points out that a lot of the time when we find ourselves with a Russell like paradox this actually reflects artifacts / conundrum’s of our language use, rather than any kind of actual genuinely logical problem as in the famous: are you the class of all classes that are members of themselves or not, because if you are you aren’t and if you aren’t you are. Basically Wittgenstein came along and said rather helpfully that it’s all a load of old bollox.

        2. Gee, so many names of people I don’t know.
          ‘this actually reflects artifacts / conundrum’s of our language use, rather than any kind of actual genuinely logical problem’
          Yeah, I’ve been saying that for a while. Like asking ‘What is God’ or ‘Who am I’ or ‘What is right’. Well, these words mean whatever you want them to mean.
          You can point at a thing and assign a word to it. Say, you are a kid and your father goes to a lawn with you, gives you a stick and tells you to hit a ball so that it lands in a hole. He uses the word ‘golf’ to describe this activity, so you associate that with it.
          But let’s hypothetically assume that somebody else takes his kid to a swimming pool and then tells him to go under the water and hold his breath. He then calls this ‘golf’.
          Then these two kids grow up and meet in real life and disagree about ‘what golf is’. That is the start of philosophy. ‘What is the true nature of golf?’ And if you think that golf clearly is the first thing, that is simply because your lifetime has resembled more closely that of the first kid.
          But in reality the disagreement is purely semantical. So the one guy would say ‘Let’s play golf’. And the other one would say ‘Wait, this is not golf!’ So they could either argue what ‘golf’ really is. Or the one who suggested to play golf could simply say ‘Ah, alright, there is no agreement over the meaning of the word. So I will rephrase. My suggestion is that we go to a lawn and use sticks to hit balls so that they land in holes.’
          There is no ‘true nature of golf’. But there is a real idea of an activity in the mind of each of those guys that is being associated with the word ‘golf’. This idea of an activity is real. The word ‘golf’ is just a pointer. As in programming, you can simply use a different pointer which leads to the same associated data.
          As for definitions, yeah, you need to start out with something that is already known. My description of ‘golf’ above would be meaningless if the words ‘stick’ and ‘lawn’ and ‘ball’ and ‘hole’ meant nothing to you.
          Now, when I say masculinity, I have associations of some forms of behavior in my head. You can say ‘that is not masculinity. That is … (insert word)’ But nevertheless, it is something that I feel a connection to and want to be, no matter what you call it.
          So maybe it’s invalid to say that the words point to ‘the real thing in the real world’, but rather valid to say that they point to a real memory or concept in the mind. So maybe one could say that the goal of a good language would simply be to synchronize the associations that people have with a word. So that when I say ‘masculinity’, you have the same association that I have, of hopefully a similar observation about reality. But that does not mean that the word in itself has any meaning. It is simply an agreement on what to call certain things.
          ‘I appreciate you’ve moved on from language philosophy’
          I have? Not sure what that means.

        3. ‘I appreciate you’ve moved on from language philosophy’…
          I have? Not sure what that means.”
          My gloss. You mentioned you were bored with meditating on the nature of language, which I interpreted as ‘language philosophy’. Seriously though, if you don’t know all these artsy fartsy names I keep dropping to sound intellectual, it’s clear you’ve been getting these ideas from somewhere. You appear almost to be referencing Saussurean linguistics and the late Wittgenstein. You also seem to have this aversion to celebrity theory though. As though you trying to return to the basics (except you haven’t been there).
          As for your gold example. Yes, that’s a real enough philosophical issue, one which we rarely encounter in the real world to the degree that we share language and experience (or language games). That shared experience, may of course be called culture, hence the ‘discovery’ that words that we assumed were simply pointing to reality are in fact simply pointing to our reality, or rather the reality of our culture, history and experience. Yet, while the latter may not reflect ultimate truth (which must be bracketed off as effectively beyond reach, even if it were intelligible) it may provide an approximation of ‘truth’ – it is that which is given to us, and when we regard invented words and concepts like borkmorkdum as equivalent, we may be failing to see how solid such concepts really are, even if they are not absolutely solid. Your example of golf actually made me think of a very silly film I saw once called Kung Pow where one of the characters when kung fu fighting says things like “haha I am the first to bleed, I win” and the senior monks later reveal that “we taught him wrong, for a joke”. The fact is there is a way to do kung fu, and there is a way not to do kung fu. That does not necessarily mean that kung fu has always existed in the mind of God, or as one of the Platonic forms, but that Kung Fu has a history, and an internal consistency that one get wrong or right. The same is true of golf, if not necessarily of the colour red (which might relate not only to culture, but to more fundamental perceptual differences) and the same is true also of masculinity I think. There is a history, and accumulated wisdom to masculinity. The culture we live in is trying to destroy that, hide and slander it as inherently toxic (ironically in a very essentialist way). My view is that that is a deception, even if there may be parts of that history and wisdom, that do need to be reviewed and improved upon

    7. I partly agree and partly disagree.
      I agree that words in and of themselves have no inherent meaning. You can associate a word with whatever you want. You can make ‘banana’ denote a dung beetle.
      But no matter how we call things in the real world, the real world does not change. It just is what it is. Our language may shape how we look at this world and what we focus on in it and how we value it.
      Nonetheless, there is an existence that is beyond words. When you manage to shut off your thoughts, you perceive the world as it is. In this mode, it is impossible to have words or thoughts or beliefs ‘shape’ the world as it is into something else, because thoughts are not available.
      Take a duck. A duck understands nothing. It has no mind. It has no thoughts (likely). You could tell a duck ‘Female ducks don’t exist’ or ‘Sex does not exist’. The duck would think you just greeted it, shrug, and go fuck a female duck.

    8. Also, let’s not forget that in order to say ‘masculinity does not exist’, you have to acknowledge that it exists in the first place. You can not deny something that does not exist. 🙂

    9. I think I’m with you on this.
      Many on the right think that their Bible-based or “nature”-based beliefs are grounded in “absolute truth”.
      Feminism, which is tied with post-modernist thought, has thrown epistemology up in the air and made all traditional ideas questionable. Truth is relative, and therefore masculinity and femininity are empty concepts that can ultimately be redefined. Feminists are redefining these concepts as suits their current interests.
      Most on the right are still arguing in terms of “the way that things are meant to be”, but the left has had the counter for this line of thought for a long time now.
      What I think you’re suggesting is that the right needs to start arguing from the premise that we know that everything can be redefined as anything else, but that we would simply rather define things this way, for X reasons.
      Another advantage the left has is that because they begin their arguments from a post-modernist viewpoint (where truth is unknowable, standards are changeable), whether they contradict themselves or show low integrity is irrelevant. The right will fall apart if principles are not held to, while the left can trigglypuff all day long and it doesn’t make them any less credible… credibility isn’t even a feature of their platform.

      1. Pretty much. I mean, just because you don’t like the A-Bomb doesn’t mean nuclear fission isn’t real and just because the way feminists ran with the conclusions of the post modernists doesn’t mean the post modernists were off base.
        Knowledge about how the world works is a tool. This tool has been misused and abused much to the detriment of the world. Ignoring that the tool exists and is powerful is not the way to undo the damage

      2. “What I think you’re suggesting is that the right needs to start arguing
        from the premise that we know that everything can be redefined as
        anything else, but that we would simply rather define things this way,
        for X reasons.”
        If the Right wants to win, they need to stop wasting time with debating the Progressive morons and start exposing them to the mushy middle (eg agree and amplify).
        “The right will fall apart if principles are not held to”
        Conservatism has no principles beyond ‘the feelz”, they are the moderates.

    10. Uh no, you just can’t grasp the issue. Yes, words can be changed, and people can be deluded, and men can be emasculated, and women can be polluted. But that doesn’t mean that there is no fundamental nature of men and women, or of words. the fact that something can be perverted, does not mean that perverting it is not fundamentally wrong, nor that it isn’t doomed to failure.
      None of those things are mutually exclusive. You’re not getting that, but it isn’t complicated. And all of reason and morality depends on it.

      1. It is complicated and men who fail to see that might as well just be militants feminists. The world, reality, language and society are not simple.

        1. I can appreciate the sentiment, but I don’t agree with the implication. Sometimes things are fairly straightforward. i think I covered the issue in my comment (and you don’t seem to disagree). Whether you’d call it complicated or not is up to you, of course. But I don’t think someone who had a simple and straightforward view of something would be necessarily wrong. I certainly wouldn’t automatically view them as being like a militant feminist. Although I do agree that language and society are not simple. Although the issue isn’t exactly that, it’s whether they are fixed, or changing. My point was merely that they can be both. Something can change, and yet, in some sense, remain the same. the best example I can think to illustrate this, is the one George Orwell made, regarding the subject. How a person changes dramatically from childhood to adulthood, and yet remains the same person. Or how a country can change beyond recognition, and yet still be the same land, and the same nation of people.
          Also that something may change to an extent, and yet still have a fundamental nature (those two things also not being exclusive). A good understanding of the world, people, society, and language, is made easier when you appreciate that all these things can and do change, and yet that they also retain a nature, which ultimately does not, or cannot be changed. At least not in the manner in question (people consciously trying to change the nature of language, people consciously trying to change human nature).

        2. You still are assuming an underpinning objective reality and merely making an allowance for language to screw that up. What I am saying is that the believe that there is a static truth is the problem and, holding on to such an antiquated belief is the reason that people with traditional values are getting creamed in this culture war. It is childish to hold onto an obsolete idea because you like it better.
          Meanwhile, the identity issue that Orwell gives is basically just the cartoon version of some real and serious questions about indentity and, again, Orwell (who is by no stretch a great thinker) simplifies concepts until they make sense to the common thought without making any real attempt to penetrate them in a meaningful way.

  19. How about replacing both ‘man’ and ‘woman’ with ‘children of the corn’?

  21. As a divorced man, I don’t like saying “ex-wife”. For some reason, it’s easier to say “former spouse”. It sounds more detached.

  23. The left has been changing the meaning of words for a generation now. It’s what they do, and it’s a large part of why they always win. Look at the recent Iran ransom foolishness. You know it was a ransom payment. I know it was a ransom payment. Because we know what the definition of “ransom” is. But the administration steadfastly refused to identify it by its true name. I wonder why.

    2. Exactly correct. They change the definitions, and continue to “evolve” them as fast as they can get you to agree with their current change. The power they have is ONLY one of language, and nothing else.
      First it was “Sex”. Then “Gender” got transmorgrified to equate to same meaning of “Sex” in the 1970’s and they left it still for a decade and we were ok with that. Then slowly they started to change “Gender” to mean more than “Sex” and slowly we agreed to that. Now “Gender” means you can cut your dick off and self identify as a dolphin and you or I can’t disagree because we’ve allowed the word to change in the past. I mean if we say “Gender is XX or XY” they can clearly (and rightly) laugh at us, since they’ve separated the word from the word “Sex” long ago.
      Reasserting “Gender is a false construct. There is only Sex. You have either XX or XY chromosomes” is like holding a cruxifix up to a vampire to them. They scatter and scream ad hominem but ultimately they can’t fight it. Getting more people to agree with US is the winning strategy. They only have power because we allow them to.

      1. While they may “only” have the power of language, that is an incredible power. Language shapes thoughts.

        1. I could not agree more. That’s why I disallow their ever changing fluid words from the get go. Ultimately by rejecting their framework as the valid one (“use this word, and not the other, then accept my redefining the fluid!”) they have no platform to defeat me.

  24. Just performing a little statistical analysis on trends in the English language over the last 60 years, extrapolating out another handful of decades… Um, bad news, guys. According to my data, in about thirty years, only three English words will remain: “rape”, “Hitler”, and “literally”.

    1. but so many possibilities. I mean, hitler literally rape. Rape literally hitler. Literally rape hitler. Literally hitler rape (we need to figure out what the verb “hitler” means)

      1. You need not limit yourself to simple permutations. Observe:
        Rape rape rape!
        Rape rape Hitler rape!
        Literally Hitler Hitler!
        (Also, apparently all punctuation has been replaced exclusively by exclamation points.)

        1. I suppose there will be a transition phase where “rape” “hitler” and “literally” have roughly the same function as “smurf”
          I was raping for a rape of hitler when literally a cat raped across my hitler!

        3. Talk about narrowing language. Imagine the tyrant: “All verbs have hereby been hitlered by the word Hitler. You may now hitler down. Hitler strong, comrades.”

      2. Hitler (verb) /ˈhɪtlə/
        -to conquer and seize all things of value, qualities, freedom, and self-worth of the subject(s) leaving them destitute and morally and physically destroyed to face either defeat or death.

    1. Humanity
      Auf wiedersehen
      It’s time to say goodbye
      The party’s over
      As the laughter dies
      An angel criesHumanity

  26. The shitty state of the music industry will reinforce 3rd grade vocabulary however, where gender will remain nyukkahz vs bishes in the, “rap game.”

    2. awww man give man taylor a break. He land a probe on a freaking comet and the world blew up at him because they were offended by his shirt.

      1. The one and only beef I have with Taylor was that he didn’t flip the feminist cunts the bird when they threw a hissy fit about his shirt.
        He should’ve said, “I just made history. The fuck have you done? That’s what I thought so STFU!”

        1. Yeah. I can’t really blame him. University funding is pretty awesome. I’d have done the same but it is a weak move. Correct answer woule have been “honey, I’m talking about science and math. We can discuss fashion later”

  30. The word (for “father” was not so much obscene as-with its connotation of something at one remove from the loathsomeness and moral obliquity of childbearing-merely gross, a scatological rather than a pornographic impropriety);
    the comically smutty word relieved what had become a quite intolerable tension.

    – Brave New World, Aldous Huxley (1931)

    Anything with the word ‘man’ or titles including ‘Mrs’ and Miss’ are off limits at Newcastle University

    – Australia (2016)

    Anything with the word man or father in it are banned

    – UNC (2016)

    1. Aldous Huxley’s novel just continues to astonish. He saw where the bad trends of modernity would take us, and his vision looks more prophetic all the time.
      Whereas the Christian goofs looking into “the future” like the late Tim LaHaye just sound cartoonish with their fantasies about the rapture and the end times.

  31. I speak Spanish as well as English. If you don’t already know this, everything in Spanish is either male or female. For instance, la computadora (feminine in Spanish), el dormitorio (masculine in Spanish). These are just a few examples. What will they do about foreign language departments then? Make them conform or eliminate them?

      1. News to me. Even better than “black man” in Welsh being “Dyn du”.
        I wonder what the etymology of that is.

    3. This is good to know if they everiimplement gender neutral language in my workplace because they let the Mexicans speak Spanish all the time despite speaking perfect English. Ill learn Spanish just to rain on their parade. No double el standard.

  33. I can’t believe I’m reading this.
    Before my eyes, I see a vision. A particular individual is lost in thoughts. He feels a strange emotion in the presence of another particular individual. The other particular individual notices something is off and asks: ‘What is it, fellow particular individual?’ The other particular individual has visions before his eyes of doing something with the other particular individual, but he never heard about such a thing and is afraid of these weird visions. He does recognize that in this vision, he would like to put that something which dangles between the particular individual’s legs into the hole that is between particular individual 2’s legs. He brings up the courage and tries to explain himself, but he has no words for how those things between the legs are called. In a way, the particular individual has never acknowledged their existence or heard anyone talk about them. And yet in his visions, they seem of extraordinary importance. He just wishes he could express himself. The other particular individual with the unnamed mysterious hole between her legs looks at him with pity, like she would at a raving lunatic and advises him to go to counseling in the Psych Resources Department.
    (Replace every occurence of ‘he’ and ‘she’ with something gender-neutral. I actually tried not to use the words and ended up surprised how I had missed it in so many places)

  34. How are feminists not (((triggered))) by words like female or woman, that are modified versions of masculine words?

  37. So when lesbos get married and adopt, why don’t they shun the word mother as sexist?

    1. You would be totally justified to say the phrase, youre a fucking idiot, then walk away.

  42. So what do we call a lot of the comic-book superheroes now? We’ll have to change the name of the current Supergirl TV series to Superperson or something.

  44. I guess we’ll also have to change the name of the DC movie franchise to the Social-Justice League, because plain old justice shows white male privilege..

    1. I hate Obama, but…
      props to the college dude who bangs her out. she is good looking I bet she rebels heavily like Bush’s daughter
      Odds she does a porno within 4 years?

      1. Honestly, someone from this side of the internet must be the one to bang her out, get photographic evidence, then post an article on ROK with said evidence. He must be willing to die for his cause like a derka, because he will likely face the Clinton treatment once all is said and done.

        2. The new Edward Snowden…who will literally have inside information on all of Malia’s orifices.

      1. Feminists object to the words daughter and ho. Anybody want to speculate about how many cocks this “wild child” has had?

  47. A part of me hopes that all modern conveniences magically disappear overnight. Then all the people who force this nonsense on others will naturally die out, as will their male orbiters because none of them will know how to live off the land or properly work in a group setting to create shelter, gather water, hunt and gather, etc.

    1. People invented this social-justice lunacy as a form of rent-seeking. When they have used up enough of society’s surplus wealth, built up over many generations by white male industry, Malthusianism will take its course and these people will starve.

      1. WESTERN white male industry. Apart from a few things in Russia and Poland, eastern Europe has done jack shit.

  52. All this shit has been going on for years now, especially in (surprise surprise) government publications. I’m shocked that US colleges, ever in the van of SJW thought control, have taken this long to formalize “gender neutral” language policy. Anyhow that word table was gold =D

  54. The one that irks me the most is ‘partner’. It was invented to make gays and lesbians feel more like normal couples (which they aren’t). The next time a woman mentions ‘partner’ in a conversation I’m going to ask her if she’s a lesbian.
    Also ‘manhole’ should stay as it is. When women start to go down into stinky sewers to clean them out then they can change the name to something more universal.

  56. Where was this George Carlin when it came time for SNL?
    I recall watching, after Carlin’s passing, his bit of SNL and it was terrible. If it hadn’t been for his role as Rufus, I’d have thought he was just another unfunny comedian propped up by “zeitgeist”.
    Little did I know at the time that the internet was rife with these videos of his routine where he was not only humorous but intelligent…everything modern-day hacks like Bill Maher are claimed to be but are not.

  57. Emasculation of society is pursued, in part, through the emasculation of language. Trying to indoctrinate people that using the proper term is offensive, and teaching them to be afraid of using the wrong language, is a natural part of teaching them to be afraid and submissive.
    The aim of feminism is emasculation.
    The aim of leftism is emasculation.
    The aim of globalism is emasculation.
    That is why feminists, the left, and the globalists hate neomasculinity so much.

    1. The best way to counteract emasculation – of language, and of men themselves is for all men to say [email protected]&k political correctness, and for all men to be their true UNAPOLIGETIC masculine male selves, linguistically and in all other areas of their lives.
      If the feminized world doesn’t like it ….. too f$#king bad!

  58. “Workmanlike”.. Is that even a fucking word?
    But I noticed they never replaced “man up” with the PC equivalent.. they wouldn’t dream of taking away one of the feminists’ favorite shaming language, after all.
    Anyhow..
    Vagina: Beautiful source of all life.
    Penis: Rape implement.

  59. Do you know who likely won’t follow these rules? People who speak “ebonics”. But I’m sure that kind of language will get a pass.

  60. Hey you LGBT, you visible minority and women or not women, men or not men, transgender? Inventions to keep everyone fighting everyone and not paying attention to keeping democracy going on. Do not go to those things you do not want to go and do more of all you want to do. After all this is the freedom of the student’s life. If you lose it to be political correct you will regret later. So be a student and do what you like to do but keep an eye on the democracy, do not let it die. I am no more a student but this is what I will do if I were you.

  61. “Each employee is expected to turn in his annual disclosure form by the deadline
    Becomes…
    The incumbent is expected to edit a variety of documents and must also prepare a weekly update.”
    Um, no it doesn’t. Check that pdf. These are the “before” and “after” from two different examples:
    “Each employee is expected to turn in his annual disclosure form by the deadline. Revised: Employees are expected to turn in the annual disclosure forms by the deadline.
    “Example: The incumbent is expected to edit a variety of documents. She must also prepare weekly updates. Revised: The incumbent is expected to edit a variety of documents and must also prepare a weekly update.”
    Could you not make an argument without misrepresenting the facts? Or did this *feel* right, even if reality didn’t agree? In which case, grow some fucking balls and face reality as it exists.

Comments are closed.