Master Shitlord Takes Advantage Of University Policy Allowing Students To Register Any Gender Pronoun

In addition to the sun rising, us dying, and the inevitability of taxes, another thing that is certain is that SJW-inspired drama and general hassle will continue to worsen and become more ridiculous as our societies further circle the drain. Today’s topic is the University of Michigan, their quest to force “identity tolerance” on their students directly (and us all indirectly), what you can do to deal with this crap, and some fairly decent trolling done by one U of M student taking advantage of the situation.

200 kinds of special snowflake

The university, I am sure, has the best intentions at hand. The student can pick whatever mental illness they think they have and pick anything from ze to (presumably) attack helicopter, and it will automatically populate up on the faculty rosters for each student’s classes so that they don’t involuntarily make an error and assume that person with breasts, long hair, narrow hips and a Mixalot ass is a woman addressed as she.

He, she or ze? University of Michigan students are now able to choose the personal pronoun they want faculty and staff to use when talking with them, the school announced.

The move was made to help foster inclusiveness, according to an e-mail to students and faculty members on the Ann Arbor campus from Provost Martha Pollack and Royster Harper, vice president for Student Life.

There’s a couple (at least) problems with this. The first is that you don’t know where each student is coming from, and you can’t ask them. On one end of the spectrum, you have people who legitimately believe they are the opposite gender from what their biology indicates, and, although that is definitely still a mental illness, it’s not one to mock, as the only real treatment is radical, irreversible surgery.

Second problematic (yay, SJW buzzwords) situation is the generally confused students who pick one of the many new genders that have spread like a bad case of the jungle rot in the past couple years. All of these, without exception, are mental illnesses, bullshit, and delusions not to be humored or enabled. There are only men and women, you can’t be anything else as nothing else exists outside the malfunctioning minds of the progressive.

Third problem are the attention whores. These are people who are straight, and are secure in that their mental identity matches their physical form, but they realize that just isn’t edgy, so they create some made up thing to victim-signal and be more socially relevant and desirable. It’s the evolution of all girls going bisexual in college; it’s just attention whoring.

There is, however, a fourth problem.

Enter the troll

Grant Stroble, University of Michigan student, conservative, and candidate for 2016 Shitlord of the Year, decided to troll the hell out of the campus, and registered his pronoun as His Majesty, (er, His Majesty’s pronoun as His Majesty…this shit is confusing.) Anyway, Stroble’s name presumably appears with His Majesty in the pronoun field next to it, which is an obvious troll, but brilliant as they have to entertain it.

What if he identifies as a 16th century English king? Isn’t that more believable than “female on Tuesdays” or “black on the inside?” Fortunately, he exercised a little restraint; he could have gone for Reichsführer  or something equally triggering.

His Majesty Grant Strobl

Theoretically, the university has to follow through on their procedure and address Mr. Stroble as His Majesty when in the third person else they risk exposing this whole charade of pandering to the infantile and deluded as the farce that it is. Eventually, inevitably, however, all houses of cards fall, and therein lies our opportunity.

Live in reality

In a mixed audience, I’d simply say to check out what apparatus you possess from which to urinate next time you feel the urge, and that will tell you what gender you are, however, even though Return Of Kings has some female readers, the majority of us are male, so we can skip that check.

Gentleman, if you posses a dick, you’re a man; it’s that simple. You might be a gay man and fancy other men, or you might be an asexual man and fancy no one, or you could just be what used to be considered a normal man and like a principled, monogamous, healthy woman like we espouse here, but regardless, you are a man nonetheless.

That’s reality. I know it’s been argued that there is no reality, that it’s all perception and, since we can’t see reality outside of our perception, it could be all our perception. I’m an engineer, not a philosopher, and if you perceive that you can step off a pier and fly, your perception will be corrected by reality as gravity asserts itself and you move towards the earth’s center at some 32.2 ft/s^2 until stopped by something.

Yes, but we are being asked to buy into this person’s delusions, which is something we can decline to do.

The point is to be effective, and I will use an example of computer gaming. In most online multiplayer shooters, there are three “realities” going on between you and your opponent with whom you are trading shots. There is your reality, which is where your computer thinks you are, and where it thinks the other guy is. There is his reality, which is where his computer thinks you and he are. However, the most important one is the server, which controls where you both actually are, and it’s the one that matters.

Back when I was in college, I played these games and this was when we had a nice, fat internet connection, but many of the players all over the country were on dialup modems still. Their performance suffered because they had a bad connection to the server’s “reality” and they got stomped by those of us better connected.

This works in life; those of us who are better connected to reality and not suffering delusions tend to do better. Anything from fitness, to valuable skills, to not tolerating shitty people in your life; the man that is squared away prospers, and he can recognize that same skill in other people.

I’ve long said that there are two kinds of people in the world; those that can do stuff, and those who can’t and just talk about it. Similar to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, competent people can recognize competence (or incompetence) in others, whereas incompetent people are ignorant of their failings and those of others.

Gender identity disorders, like many other mental illnesses, affect the competence of the mind of the person suffering from it, and those people are just kind of noted and dismissed by the people who actually do things. I mean, I’m a straight guy, but, like we teach here, chasing women is not my identity and main purpose in life; do you think someone that identifies as a man or a woman based on what side of the bed they wake up on is really going to ever accomplish anything when that’s their most important part of their personality?

Conclusion

More and more institutions will be adopting this nonsense and the best thing to do is ignore it. There’s no need to take a stand or make a statement, just ignore it and refer to men as him and women as her. If you get yelled at, a simple “yeah” or “uh-huh” will suffice to placate the snowflake, then you immediately get back on with your life.

This will benefit you as you won’t be wasting time with nonsense, and you will associate favorably with others who don’t waste their time either by staying in reality and getting stuff done, as opposed to worrying about nothing. Life is too short to entertain the left.

Read More: The Fantastical Myth Of Gender And Race Being Social Constructs

174 thoughts on “Master Shitlord Takes Advantage Of University Policy Allowing Students To Register Any Gender Pronoun”

  1. What a shit show, good on his majesty for mocking these fools. The rabbit hole is certainly much deeper than anyone would have guessed.

  2. I would have chosen “Waycist Wapist.” Of course, I would also list my surname as “Biggus Dickus.”

    1. At my uni we had several weeks of lecturers asking Mike Hunt to please complete some form or other after his name had been added to the attendance list.

      1. Not as amusing as I would have liked. I was hoping a cop with a night stick would smash her obnoxious face in (and I’m usually very anti-police violence).

    2. It’s really hard to go wrong using Monty Python references. Those guys seem nigh prophetic when we look back on them and the things that they saw coming.

  3. I identify as my namesake, FitzRoy Sommerset, 1st Baron Raglan and history’s most unfairly tarnished General: he commanded the British Army at Balaclava where the Charge of the Light Brigade happened, but he didn’t even lose the battle. In fact, he never lost a battle, his record was 2-0-1.
    You must now address me as “Field Marshal”, “Your Grace” or “My Lord”. If you don’t, you are racist against British Aristocrats and invading my safe space at Cefntilla Court.

    1. I’ll address you as that as soon as I travel half a league, half a league, half a league onward.

  4. If you really want to troll the fuck out of them, use the FULL HONORIFICS of the Russian Tsar…
    By the Grace of God, We, NN, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod; Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Chersonese Taurian, Tsar of Georgia; Lord of Pskov and Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, Finland; Prince of Estland, Livland, Courland, Semigalia, Samogitia, Belostok, Karelia, Tver, Yugorsky land, Perm, Vyatka, Bolgar and others; Lord and Grand Prince of Nizhny Nogorod, Chernigov, Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersk, Udorsky land, Obdorsk, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all of the northern countries Master; and Lord of Iberia, Kartli, and Kabardia lands and Armenian provinces; Circassian and Mountainous Princes and their Hereditary Lord and Owner; Lord of Turkestan; Norwegian Heir; Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, and Oldenburg, and others, and others, and others.

    1. African dictators had some good ones. I would like to be called “Unique Miracle” although Obama probably wants that one.

        1. I have to correct you. ‘Meine’, unlike the English ‘her’, describes the ‘gender’ (?!?!?) of the word that follows the pronoun, not the other way around. So he’s either implying that ‘Fuehrer’ is female (which would be ‘Fuehrerin’ then, tho) or he means ‘Meine’ as Plural form of ‘Mein’, meaning there are multiple Fuehrers.

        2. lol did I I screw it up? My knowledge of German is next to none. Is it Mein Führer maybe?

        3. I believe the female form of Fuhrer is Fuhrerin. But that word doesn’t actually exist because women can’t be leaders lolololololololololol

        4. More likely a trans-fuhrer: Already a “meine”, but not yet a full “fuhrerin”. I heard the procedure is scheduled…

  5. Disagree they shouldn’t be mocked, i shame them as much as i can, shame is what keeps people decent. I’d do the same with a gluttonous pig shoving its face with puzza hut

    1. I think the writer was referring to the legit mentally insane ones, not the special snowflakes looking for the latest and greatest victim card to play. They latter should most certainly be mocked into oblivion.

    2. Yea I think they should. Because they are deadly serious with their nonsense and want you to take them seriously. What better way to give them the finger by openly mocking and making light of what they are so serious about?

  6. While it is all well and good, it won’t be long before this guy either disappears or is otherwise forced out.

      1. Doubt he’ll slink away, he did something that I’m pretty sure he knew would cause controversy. I admire his moxy.

  7. I identify as a territory marker and you have to address me as Pissonmyleg.
    – Pissonmyleg?
    – OK. *unzips*

  8. Reminds me of another joke I heard- guy goes to doctor and wants sleeping pills. Doc asks why, guy says I can’t sleep at night because my wife thinks she’s a refrigerator. Doc asks why would that cause you to stay awake? Sounds like she’s the one with a problem. Guy says “she sleeps with her mouth open and the light keeps me awake.

    1. I can only imagine the kind of sex life that couple would have. And now, for some reason, I’m in the mood for some icecream.

  9. would be fun to be in college at this time to troll on the institution. damn, missed the boat by a few years

    1. Same. The only trolling I could do, and did, was force OSU to not use my social security number as my student ID number. I spend upwards of 4 hours in the administration office forcing the point that (at the time) SSN can only be legitimately used to collect or receive social security funds. Eventually they were forced to cave after dragging some weasel from the compliance department over to acknowledge that, yeah, I was right. It was a pointless exercise, but I really felt good disrupting their “Next…next….next” faceless bureaucracy.

    2. I may go enroll at my local community college. Last time I was there, they had a bathroom for anyone who “identified with either sex”. It’s not to far fetched they let you choose your own pronoun. I’m on the fence between Hitler or Heil Hitler.

  10. Idi Amin-“His Excellency President for Life Field Marshall Al Hadji Dr. Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, King of Scotland Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in particular.”

      1. You were been radomly select for win Nigerian lottery, please for you to send 300 American dollars for processing fee, we for then send for you lottery proceedings.

    1. King of Scotland my ass. @unabashed and @ghostofjefferson and I are all Scottish landed lords….

      1. You should have more respect for your all knowing,all seeing benevolent former king. God save the King! He sort of looked Scottish, with a really good tan.

  11. Bingo, the more you argue with them, the more they screech. I prefer a simple ‘fuck off’.

    1. Yeah, it’s sad the sole purpose in the attention whores’ life is to have your “gender” (mental illness) recognised by higher institutions and validated blindly by every single “entity” on earth (I don’t use the term “person” because it’s offensive to “zey otherkins”)

    2. i prefer “fuck off” too…
      However, I think it’s hate speech and you can be arrested…
      I was walking my new born kid in a stroller in NYC few years ago.
      Just got him to sleep.
      An effeminate creature with a clipboard jumps in front of me for a survey, I swing the stroller the other way, he jumps in front again, holding out the clipboard for survey, I swing the other way, trying to get away, and he jumps in front again.
      I say “fuck off”.
      And all of them from the group scream at me :
      “that’s assault!!!”
      We are truly fucked…

      1. Proper response is to escalate. *draw lead sap* *smack freak upside the haid.* “No, THAT’S assault.”

      2. The “That’s assault” retort is a poor attempt to command your attention. Flip the bird and keep walking. And if anyone lays a finger on you and yours, you can teach them what assault is.

  12. I think I would have went with White Male Overlord just to really, really test the limits of their insanity, but he probably went the correct route and played it cool.

  13. Is this ‘don’t’ poster for real? Jesus, and they thought patriarchy was oppressive … now everyone can come along and freely tell you how to speak.
    Nevermind having to remember the specific pronoun for each person you meet. Gah!
    You guys … I’m kinda glad I don’t live in the US. Although I have a feeling it won’t take long until this comes to Germany. Heh. I mean, we have the ‘polite’ pronouns on the other hand, so there’s that.

  14. “Gender identity disorders, like many other mental illnesses, affect the competence of the mind of the person suffering from it, and those people are just kind of noted and dismissed by the people who actually do things.”
    I feel the need to troll a litte here.
    You said you were an engineer. What makes you an expert on ‘gender identity disorder’?

    1. I create leather items as a side business. Despite this handicap, I’m able to ascertain that a person walking down the street screaming at invisible demons and whipping his body and arms around in public, probably has a mental disorder. I can also tell that the bum sitting on the sidewalk, in rags, begging for money, who has been there for months, is homeless.
      Weird, right?

      1. It is weird indeed, GOJ. Those are the reactions I would have as well, but as the author here states:
        “whereas incompetent people are ignorant of their failings and those of others”
        Firstly, define ‘mental disorder’. If we are going to use that term, which I think has a lot of history, we ought to delve deeper into what it actually means. I personally don’t know much about it. My reaction, as yours, would simply be the ‘He’s obviously crazy’ one. But then, is it that easy? What if there are actually invisible demons tormenting him? Or what if he’s the only one able to see them? Does that make everyone else crazy?
        Would a man who preaches the true nature of women among a group of whitewashed liberal cucks not be considered crazy as well? ‘You’re seeing things that aren’t there, man.’
        And the beggar … he could be a method actor preparing for his new role. Or he could be doing it for shits and giggles. Or he could be forced to do it. Or it could be a dare.
        Reality often has many perspectives!

        1. Yeah, sorry Tom, it is really that easy. I don’t subscribe to the notion that all reality is subjective. Sorry.
          Obviously I wasn’t referencing somebody being silly. I’ve actually seen “that guy” on OSU campus back in the 90’s, he was nearly famous for it, he did it every single day walking down High Street (or so I hear, I did see him many days though).

        2. Well, I didn’t say all reality is subjective. I said that there are many perspectives to things.
          Say, there are two people. Both of which are paranoidly anxious about being stalked or followed or something.
          Both appear the same to the external observer: Somehow ‘detached’.
          And yet, one of them may actually be stalked, while the other one imagines it.
          And now let’s think about the person who imagines it. Why does he/she imagine it? Probably because of some reference experience in the past, which is projected into the now. In other words, their feelings are very real, but not connected to the current situation. Whether we call this ‘crazy’ or ‘mentally ill’ or ’emotionally disturbed/disregulated’ is a matter that requires further thought.
          Likewise, we may assume that there is another option: Nothing ever happened to the person and their brain is just making it all up. This would further differentiate the person from the example I gave before.
          And yeah, the beggar example was kind of trolly.

        3. 2 nuts walked down a street. One was assaulted! Sorry, I haven’t got the chance to use that one in a long time.
          On a more serious note, I kind of find myself on the fence between you two fellas here. I like you example of two people paranoid because they are being stalked and one is actually being stalked and one is crazy and it being indistinguishable to even an astute observer.
          However, that only makes sense because we have agreed that being stalked is something that should make a rational person paranoid and being paranoid about being stalked for no reason is a legitimate illness.
          So the original DSM listed something like 75 possible mental illnesses (homosexuality included as one of them) and the DSM-IV lists something like 172.
          So if I see two fags walking down the street being gay do they have a mental disorder? Well, in 1952 yes. In 2016 no.
          So the real question isn’t whether someone is mentally ill but where their “illness is a real thing”

        4. “So the real question isn’t whether someone is mentally ill but where their “illness is a real thing””
          The two question overlap, weirdly. It is the same with ‘morally good’ etc. All is wordplay.

        5. I mean, yes…but to a lesser extent than morals I would argue.
          To continue to build on your analogy. Two people are both terribly worried about their cancer. One of them is a hypochondriac and the other has stage 4 lymphoma. Both of them are the same to even an astute eye.
          We can all reasonably be expected to say that the one with cancer is sick….but is the hypochondriac sick–only if hypochondria is an illness. So yes, some word play is involved and, I assume, some amount of politics in the shrink business….but also there is some ways in which illnesses are actually illness and some are not. I have no desire to say that severe anxiety and depression isn’t a sickness. It is (I think it is absurdly over diagnosed but the real thing is a very bad illness). But what about Munchausen by Proxy? Is this an actual sickness?
          The moral thing is a lot easier to get around than illness.

        6. Yeah, it’s shitty wordplay with the sickness thing.
          I think the truth is more subtle. I think that the universe simply has some energetic laws and we all consist of energy (not esoteric, it’s perfecly reconcilable with our electrical nervous system and everything being made out of basically energy/matter blah blah). These energies follow certain laws and certain arrangements of ‘energy management’ lead to certain outcomes. When we call something sickness, we do it because such an arrangement is, say, inefficient in that it makes us unable to perform or do something we are expected of doing, like conforming to standards. But the underlying reality does not distinguish between ‘sickness’ and ‘non-sickness’. There’s just energy and it follows certain laws and that’s it.

    2. I’m not an expert on that, nor did I claim to be. Let me come at this from a roundabout way. I’m a weekly ROK writer, and I’ve been doing this for almost a year now. One of the things impressed upon me was “don’t write something that’s been covered before unless you’re adding to it” and “make it relevant and usable to our readers.” The latter is easy when I write a technical article on something, which is usually firearms because the whole thing is educational and useful.
      The problem is when I report on something that’s socially active at the time, and I want to talk about it, but I need to make it important to us, and give advice on how to do it. Opening paragraphs are also important. Mine go like this:
      “Some wide-ranging social pithy line. A couple sentences of exposition. This is what we are talking about today, how it’s important, and how you can use it.”
      So, Grant Strobl’s trolling is hilarious. It’s relevant because it’s an event in the SJW invasion of the US. But, I need to make it usable, so I compare the gender pronoun thing as not being in reality. You don’t have to be an expert on a disorder, or a contrived disorder, to see that, when that is all a person is about, that is all they will ever be. I’ve got ten years experience in corporate America, and you can see how people that are weird get treated. They don’t get fired, but they just kind of quietly get a little box built around them and nobody really interacts with them more than necessary.
      So, it’s not that I’m an expert on the disorder, but I’m a trained observer in how American society treats mental disorders in general.

      1. “They don’t get fired, but they just kind of quietly get a little box built around them and nobody really interacts with them more than necessary.”
        Well, that isn’t indicative of being mentally ill necessarily. As you said, they are ‘weird’. That does not necessarily make them mentally ill, but possibly just different. I think we had many articles on how men have to hide their masculinity in corporate America; if they didn’t, would they not also get considered weird and maybe ‘mentally ill’?
        I just think that ‘mentally ill’ is quite a specific term and, if meant to be used ‘scientifically’, may need further insight into what it actually denotes.
        In fact, this may lead to the conclusion that ‘mental illness’ in many cases is simply social shaming in many cases, especially with psychology delving into the ‘men should be like girl or they are mentally ill’ direction.
        But then, are there perspectives where ‘mental illness’ is really a valid concept and not just social shaming? Maybe. But then, does ‘mental illness’ per se even mean anything? Maybe. Maybe not. Questions over questions.

        1. No. There are no “questions over questions”. It is clear that any adult that demands others feed his or her own delusion (aka “use the pronoun that suits my definition of myself” even if that definition is clearly just based on my feelings) has at least one of the following conditions:
          __1__ Arrested psychological development
          __2__ Seriously Inflated opinion of oneself (which is commonly a reaction to low self-esteem)
          __3__ Mentally Ill (something like, say… narcissistic personality disorder)
          To attempt to cast doubts on that is really just applying “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”.

        2. It’s just a definition word play kind of thing. You can call it that. Or you can wonder what ‘professionals’ mean by those terms. Or you can not call it that. Your choice.

        3. That is just retreating to semantics. “Either way” to create a false sense of mystery is nothing more than “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”.

        4. It is not an argumentum ad ignorantiam. That would be if I claimed that ‘planes will never fly without wings’. That would be to assume that the thesis ‘planes can fly without wings’ is wrong just because it has not been proven or disproven yet.
          What I am getting at here is that there is no thesis to begin with. You are saying ‘behavior X = mentally ill’. Basically, you are simply asigning a vague rather undefined word (“mentally ill”) to a specific behavior. To concretely evaluate what this assertion really means, “mentally ill” would have to have a very specific definition already. Otherwise, it is simply a non-thesis. It is the same as if I bring to you some exotic fruit and say ‘This fruit is a Moraknala’. That statement does not tell you anything about the fruit. It just tells you how I call it. It is neither true nor false; the fruit simply is what it is, no matter what I call it.
          So for your statement to be verifiable, you would have to first define exactly what you mean by ‘mentally ill’.

        5. “Tom Arrow”
          Nice try. You are definitely applying “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”. Your attempt at misdirection is weak. So, since you think you can actually challenge this…

          “They don’t get fired, but they just kind of quietly get a little box built around them and nobody really interacts with them more than necessary.”
          Well, that isn’t indicative of being mentally ill necessarily. As you said, they are ‘weird’. That does not necessarily make them mentally ill, but possibly just different. I think we had many articles on how men have to hide their masculinity in corporate America; if they didn’t, would they not also get considered weird and maybe ‘mentally ill’?

          If you are going to imply that Luke said or suggested that mental illness is effectively the only cause of this type of marginalization (“effectively” so no semantics arguments on it not being “only” please), then you will have to provide some evidence of that. Let’s save you some time… to the reasonable person, it should be clear that what Luke is using that example for, is to demonstrate that general consensus is rarely random or weakly supported, and that eccentric behavior is not untethered from underlying personality issues.
          One can certainly argue for the sake of argument that there may well be the odd case of misunderstanding to the point of mass hysteria, but that is really just a “NAWALT” type fallacious argument. AKA You’re basically trying to pass of a “plea to ignorance” argument. It would be like coyly pretending that some rare set of coincidences are to blame. Unfortunately, some Razor noted by Occam gets in the way. Trolling is rarely from a position of honestly seeking truth… and that is easy to detect and refute.
          As far as cases were men have to “hide their masculinity”, those that relatively do not hide their manliness might be ostracized (as non “PC” behavior attracts potentially unwanted attention), but it is not necessarily “weird” or will someone be mentally ill to have non “PC” behavior. Of course, most trolls will pounce on this and equate that if one non-conforming attitude is not usually considered “weird” then another (say… demanding a special snowflake pro-noun) automatically isn’t either. Well… not true. Why? Because you cannot take an outcome (“marginalization”) as an automatic indication of the causes (“overt manliness” vs. plain old childishness for example) being the same. Also, one cannot claim that because the causes are different, then it follows that anything could cause one to demand their own pronoun. No. To demand others identify with one’s special identity (“I’m a unicorn!”) is not well-adjusted behavior in any reasonable view. It is childish at the very least and most likely a case of abnormal psychological development issues.
          Mental Illness? Well, one of the indicators is a need to create mystery where there really isn’t any. Can we all see where that is happening?
          = = = = =

          I just think that ‘mentally ill’ is quite a specific term and, if meant to be used ‘scientifically’, may need further insight into what it actually denotes.

          It’s called creative hyperbole. Even so, it is more aptly applied than people want to recognize. Adults who behave as spoiled children are likely to have an element of arrested development, or a personality disorder like narcissism.
          Incidentally, to ask for “further insight” in order to qualify the use of the term “mentally ill” is really just a semantics argument paired with that plea to ignorance. Most mental illness are a spectrum disease. However, just because one cannot discern an exact boundary, it does not mean that one cannot see that certain individuals are well inside a region. Specifically, when individuals are so concerned about having their own view of themselves not only acknowledged, but reinforced by forcing others into repeating that view, it is doubtful that the DSM won’t have something to say about them. That kind of all-about-me demand is bad enough in a precocious 5-year-old. It is definitely neither mature nor desired in an adult.
          Is acting like a spoiled toddler mental illness (or a result of mental illness)? Well, it does mean that someone is rather high on themselves which is often due to compensating for feelings of inadequacy. More troubling is narcissism, and that is often due to a personality disorder.
          = = = = =

          In fact, this may lead to the conclusion that ‘mental illness’ in many cases is simply social shaming in many cases, especially with psychology delving into the ‘men should be like girl or they are mentally ill’ direction.

          No. Stating that those who demand that everyone acknowledge and address them with respects to their “personal” impression of themselves is at the minimum severe hubris. These people are asking others to support his or her own “feelings” about something. As far as “gender”, that’s exactly what the contention is. Medical science can clearly define the sex of practically all individuals (there are rare hermaphrodites, but even those tend to be more one sex or the other). Most of those with issues about “pronouns” are not in that rare segment. How is that not, at the very least, childish and self-absorbed. What? Someone identifies as a Wookie, so from now on everyone has to use the pronoun of “ARrggwlll… groorrR.. Urk rrrrrowl”?
          Where is it said that men should be like girls or they are mentally ill? That seems to be quite the inapplicable false parallel.
          = = = = =

          But then, are there perspectives where ‘mental illness’ is really a valid concept and not just social shaming? Maybe. But then, does ‘mental illness’ per se even mean anything? Maybe. Maybe not. Questions over questions.

          Nice try, but your attempt to create doubt, or to misdirect is rather weak. Whether or not childish behavior (as in demanding legislation that people see things the way you “feel” without respects to what is reality) is defined as mental illness in the DSM doesn’t mean it isn’t childish behavior.
          If someone is behaving in such a way as to cause most others to generally avoid interaction in a workplace setting, it is usually a consensus that is arrived at, and examined by, independent observation. Even if there is pre-observational bias, the final determination is still largely independent. When one speaks of “shaming”, this is only trying to steer away from the concept of how aberrant behavior is still aberrant behavior. The consequence may well be shaming (usually applied by women), but the behavior or attributes being “shamed” still remain as deviant. Oh… and don’t try to counter this with the extreme by suggesting that recognizing and segregating deviancy is tantamount to repression or oppressive tendencies. That conveniently ignores how the nature of the deviancy is the deciding factor and in that demonstration of that deviancy is what is assessed (which in the case of “all about me!” is why people have no respect for it).
          So… “questions over questions”? No. Creating a false sense of doubt is a just one of the ways people attempt to misinform the public. In general, those who demand that everyone feed their delusion (as in “you must use the pronoun that I identify with or I will call myself a victim“) are clearly being childishly self-important. At the very least it is immature. When it is so contrived, chances are, there is an underlying psychological issue. Stop trying to hide that with conjured notions that there are other explanations that are even remotely in the same order or magnitude.
          So much for your hubris, Tom.

        6. I’d call the paramedics but I don’t think there is much left of Tom Arrow’s so-called argument after that severe beating………

        7. Well, that is too long for me to respond to all of your points.
          One thing that I see (and I can’t blame you) is your assumption that I may be trying to ‘justify’ something. You are used to calling something ‘mental illness’ and that word (I guess) carries with it a judgment that you hold, so you are attached to the word, while the really important thing to you is to be able to judge that behavior.
          So to make it clear: Unlike SJWs, I am not trying to get you to stop judging certain behaviors. Frankly, I don’t give a fuck. You have good reasons for your judgment, I am sure of that. That’s not my point. You may feel about certain behaviors however you want to. I am not attacking those feelings.
          My point is that it is rather impossible to verify a vague assertion.
          ‘Person X is mentally ill’. What does that imply? What does that mean? That this person displays abberant behavior, as agreed upon by ‘independent’ observers? (Independent from what exactly?)
          You bring up other words: Childish, self-absorbed, narcissistic.
          What do those words mean? More specifically, what do they mean to you and me? Likely, similar things. We grew up with pretty much the same cultural input. That is, we read books where certain behaviors were described and then called ‘childish’. Then other behaviors were called ‘narcissistic’ or ‘self-absorbed’. Naturally, we are attuned to spot these behaviors and our brains are trained to associate them with such a word.
          But realize that you are not really making any valid verifiable assertion. When you say ‘Behavior X is childish’, you are basically just saying: ‘I learned to associate this behavior with the word childish.’ Possibly: ‘I learned that these behaviors are typically observed in children’.
          But that isn’t your main point – in fact, there is no point. Your main point is your judgment. You want to assert that these behaviors are ‘bad’ (Another vague word, btw). You want to assert that the associations of words to behaviors in your mind are ‘correct’. Well, how can they be INcorrect?
          You are arguing from emotion, I think. You feel negatively towards those behaviors, and you like that there is a consensus over these negative feelings which is transported through the words like ‘mentally ill’ and ‘childish’.
          Again, I am not attacking those feelings. They are cool. I am just saying that beyond those feelings, you are not really making any point. You are just labeling. Well, labeling is not a science. I can label things whatever I like. What interests ME is: What conclusions do these labels allow us to make? In and of themselves, none. Labels are just symbols we use to point at certain things. And then we can use these labels/symbols to make assertions about the real world.
          Well, you have asserted the label ‘mentally ill’/’childish’ to certain behaviors. Okay. Why not. But you have not used these labels/symbols to make any intriguing assertion. In fact, you have made none. At max, you have said that they behave like children … so? What can we conclude from that? Does this line of thought lead us anywhere? And if they are ‘narcissistic’ (with the typically culturally associated behaviors), what does THAT tell us? Aside from having a name for it? Aside from being able to judge it.
          Again, I don’t mind the judgment. I just think that the judgment and the negative emotions towards a subject don’t really need specific words and scientific-sounding labels to be valid. You can just say ‘I fucking hate people who behave like XXX’. Fine.
          But beyond that, you have said nothing. You have basically said that you don’t like these people. Well, that’s not a scientific assertion. That’s how you feel about those things. There is nothing verifiable about it. Perhaps you could appeal to ‘common sense’ (as you did) and make the assertion that there is a consensus over how one should feel about these things or how one should judge these things. Then the assertion would be something like ‘most people share a dislike towards behavior XXX’. That would be verifiable and rather ‘scientific’ (what does that mean?)
          Anyhow, I don’t see how saying something is mentally ill creates or adds any information. And yes, I do see this as a problem in the mental health industry. It’s all fucking vague. They claim it’s science, but it’s hardly so.
          You write: “it does not mean that one cannot see that certain individuals are well inside a region”
          Well, aren’t you practicing the exact kind of mystery mongering you accuse me of? What is this mysterious ‘region’? I am all ears. I think if pressed, you will intuitively fall back to giving examples of behavior that you associate with a certain ‘region’. That’s a categorization you learned, fine. But it’s hardly saying anything of concrete value. And neither is it precise.
          “To demand others identify with one’s special identity (“I’m a unicorn!”) is not well-adjusted behavior in any reasonable view.”
          Reasonable view? Sorry, what is that? And again, you do exactly what you accuse others of. You ask me to support your feelings about this type of behavior by appealing to ‘reasonable’.

        8. “Tom Arrow”
          It’s actually quite easy to refute trolling comments Tom. All one has to do is to show how propagandists twist and turn rather than own up to having their argument negated. So, as you wish…
          Part 2.1

          Well, that is too long for me to respond to all of your points.

          No. You are just trying to rationalize an inability by hiding it behind a contrived lack of desire.
          = = = = =

          One thing that I see (and I can’t blame you) is your assumption that I may be trying to ‘justify’ something. You are used to calling something ‘mental illness’ and that word (I guess) carries with it a judgment that you hold, so you are attached to the word, while the really important thing to you is to be able to judge that behavior.

          As much as you attempt to dismiss that as an “assumption”, it isn’t. That I have carefully support my assertion with reference and reasoning shows that your choice of the word assumption is deliberately misleading. That’s weak even for a troll.
          In contrast you claim that I am “used to calling something ‘mental illness’.” Show everyone exactly how you arrive at this generalization based on the evidence in this thread. It seems you are the one making “assumptions” here. As far as “judgement”, you have not made any case even remotely compelling as to how demanding people to promote one’s own delusion (as in “I identify as a unicorn so all must use pronouns that acknowledge this!”) is not an indication of psychological issues. While you are searching for such foundation, take some time to show how you also arrive at how the “ability to judge a behavior” as being “really important” to me.
          Yes. If you are going to make accusations of that nature, you will be asked to provide some semblance of foundation. If no such support is provided, the default is that you doing nothing but promoting propaganda on the character of someone who has refuted your so-called argument.
          = = = = =

          So to make it clear: Unlike SJWs, I am not trying to get you to stop judging certain behaviors. Frankly, I don’t give a fuck. You have good reasons for your judgment, I am sure of that. That’s not my point. You may feel about certain behaviors however you want to. I am not attacking those feelings.

          No. Let’s make this clear… You are applying the expected straw man argument. I have neither stated nor implied that my option to “make a judgement” is curtailed by your trolling in any way, shape or form.
          While you do not offer any formication for this invented plaint, that does not hide how you definitely feel it necessary to misinform the public (or that you are perturbed that someone is calling out your subterfuge. I definitely have good foundation for ascribing to the notion that those who feel their “feelings” of who they are override the general observation of what they really are, but that was not at stake. I did not say or suggest that you were challenging that ability. No. I said that you were using a plea to ignorance to basically try to dismiss the contention made by Luke. The contention being that demanding one’s own self-image be reinforced by others is characteristic of underlying psychological issues. You seem to go to great lengths to deflect from this so it is obviously triggering you.
          = = = = =

          My point is that it is rather impossible to verify a vague assertion.

          No, your point (and I have carefully laid this out a couple times already) is to try to deflect from the point made by Luke. You do this by claiming the inability to accurately assess mental fitness makes the abhorrent behavior of exaggerated self-importance moot.
          You seek to deflect from that by suggesting that if no accurate evaluation of psychological competency is availed, then the behavior is to be automatically considered within the norm (since the boundary of that the norm cannot be established)… thus the “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. In reality, the behavior is self-serving and often deliberately obtuse… but you try to make the false connection that a mislabeling of the cause means that the action cannot be assessed on it own. Let’s make that simple: No on needs to see “self-aggrandizing” rubber stamped on a person’s forehead to recognize a narcissistic action.
          = = = = =

          ‘Person X is mentally ill’. What does that imply? What does that mean? That this person displays abberant behavior, as agreed upon by ‘independent’ observers? (Independent from what exactly?)

          Again, you are misrepresenting what Luke asserted in order to create a false refutation. This is another straw man argument. It was already stated that the label of mental illness is creative hyperbole, and even so, the specific behavior of demanding affirmation of delusion is likely the outward expression of deeper psychological issues. It seems you cannot accept the accuracy of that so you are constantly trying to deflect from it.
          “Independent from what, exactly?” Seriously? You are going to try that bit of coyness? Just what part of people independently arriving at the same conclusion means that independent is “independent from each other” are you not getting? Please. Search for the string, “determination is still largely independent” in my comment #comment-2938977471. I’ve just explained this to you. You are really clutching at straws, there with that invented ridicule.
          = = = = =

          You bring up other words: Childish, self-absorbed, narcissistic.
          What do those words mean? More specifically, what do they mean to you and me? Likely, similar things. We grew up with pretty much the same cultural input. That is, we read books where certain behaviors were described and then called ‘childish’. Then other behaviors were called ‘narcissistic’ or ‘self-absorbed’. Naturally, we are attuned to spot these behaviors and our brains are trained to associate them with such a word.

          The problem with pseudo-intellectualism is that purveyors are often unaware of the fundamental concepts. Instead of trying to post up these vapid arguments, look up the concept of “the reasonable man” (sure, Political Correctness will call that sexist, but that is the original term).
          Seriously, Tom, it is a child’s argument to attempt to say that assessment of what is childish, self-absorbed or narcissistic is subjective to the point that there can be “no right or wrong answer” and only “opinions”. This is why the concept of “the reasonable man” exists. If not, everyone would try the same old grade 3 argument of “well, I don’t see it that way, so it’s just your opinion against my opinion”. Things like demanding “safe spaces”, demanding the augmentation of a language to include one’s own special words, etc… that is “self-aggrandizing” in anyone’s books. There doesn’t have to be a 100% minimum threshold vote on things like that.
          The problem with narcissists is in how they rationalize anything less than worship of their special snowflakeness as oppression.
          = = = = =

          But realize that you are not really making any valid verifiable assertion. When you say ‘Behavior X is childish’, you are basically just saying: ‘I learned to associate this behavior with the word childish.’ Possibly: ‘I learned that these behaviors are typically observed in children’.

          My assertion was and still is that you are basically attempting to create a false sense of ambiguity in order to deflect from how demanding others recognize one’s own invented persona is nothing but childish antics (and likely points to some underlying psychological issue).
          It is you that is trying to focus on the exact determination, and consensual agreement by all parties, of mental illness. Further you try to suggest that if no such assessment can be accurately stated or ratified, then no assessment of behavior (attributed to potential mental illness or not) can be deemed valid. In any case you are clearly in error, and, coupled with your subsequent attempts using fallacies such as straw man arguments, shows that you are likely aware it is wrong, but, cannot admit to it (at least not publically.)
          When it is stated that “behavior X is childish” such calculation is measured against the parallel calculation of the “reasonable man”. Every anarchist likes to believe that no such congregation exists in order to ply their trade of lies, but exist it does. This is the fundamental flaw in your argument.
          = = = = =

          But that isn’t your main point – in fact, there is no point. Your main point is your judgment. You want to assert that these behaviors are ‘bad’ (Another vague word, btw). You want to assert that the associations of words to behaviors in your mind are ‘correct’. Well, how can they be INcorrect?

          Nope. Again my “main point” is that you are applying “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. This has been clearly relayed to you several times already. Obviously you cannot accept that it has been exposed.
          Asking that all others adhere to one’s delusions (and they are delusions when they are based on “feelings” that conflict with facts such as actual biological facts), and playing victim when the demands are not met is self-righteous and immature behavior. This is not just in one’s “mind”. These things are both self-evident and exists in the mind of the proverbial “reasonable man”.
          = = = = =

          You are arguing from emotion, I think. You feel negatively towards those behaviors, and you like that there is a consensus over these negative feelings which is transported through the words like ‘mentally ill’ and ‘childish’.

          Nice try but it is obvious that you are projecting your own emotional charge. Self-centered attitudes are rarely, if ever, not negative in the grander scheme of things. Whether I like, dislike or am ambivalent to how the reasonable man feels about any given assessment is moot. It is you that attempts to bring my “feelings” about it into the discussion. I have not specifically used my “feelings” about this as a supportive argument (Instead I reference that of the “reasonable man”).
          = = = = =

        9. Part 2.2

          Again, I am not attacking those feelings. They are cool. I am just saying that beyond those feelings, you are not really making any point. You are just labeling. Well, labeling is not a science. I can label things whatever I like.

          No. You cannot attack something that I have not even exposed nor would such attack have any effect on the argument I have presented. Not only that, your specific endorsement of my “feelings” is neither valued nor required, but, hey “thanks for that”. LoL.
          As far as “making a point”, I’ll say for at least the fourth time that my point is that you are applying the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignorantiam” in a vain attempt to discredit the article. No one is “labelling” but you in that you falsely label the self-absorbed behavior of “demanding the acknowledgment of personal delusion” as only “relatively” self-absorbed.
          You can “label things whatever you like” but it would be invalid if it does not concur with the label of the “reasonable man”. As before, it is a child’s argument to think otherwise.
          = = = = =

          What interests ME is: What conclusions do these labels allow us to make? In and of themselves, none. Labels are just symbols we use to point at certain things. And then we can use these labels/symbols to make assertions about the real world.

          What interests you? Lol. Who cares what interests “you” specifically. It is becoming apparent that “self-centered” is a term that triggers you. Anyways… this is yet another straw man argument. You create the notion of “labels”, falsely imply this action was a product of your opposition, and then carry on with a refutation against it. That’s rather dishonest.
          In respects to the subject matter, “mental illness” is not merely a label, it is a likely underlying condition of those who demand others support their private delusion.
          = = = = =

          Well, you have asserted the label ‘mentally ill’/’childish’ to certain behaviors. Okay. Why not.

          There you go again with the misrepresentations again. What I supported was that this article makes the assertion that strongly demanding others support one’s own delusion via affirmation (and it is strongly demanded if people are petitioning for legal support), is, likely a product of underlying psychological issues (or plain and simple “immaturity” at the very least). These issues can often be effectively deemed a mental illness. It is not merely a label placed on a certain behavior. Your reading comprehension may actually be challenged, but it is doubtful that even you do not see the distinction. You are just trying to justify your false claim.
          = = = = =

          But you have not used these labels/symbols to make any intriguing assertion. In fact, you have made none.

          No. I have not merely assigned labels to something. This is your weak attempt at dismissing the reasoned argument made that you cannot refute. This inability to mount a defense is shown in how you repeatedly attempt to deflect from how you are attempting to use “argumentum ad ignorantiam” (which, —WAS— the point being made).
          Intriguing? I see now you are trying to “judge” the entertainment value of a point rather than the suitability of it… and you imply you are “not” arguing from “emotion”? In “fact”, I have made several points that you skirted around, which again shows that you cannot confront them directly.
          = = = = =

          At max, you have said that they behave like children … so? What can we conclude from that? Does this line of thought lead us anywhere? And if they are ‘narcissistic’ (with the typically culturally associated behaviors), what does THAT tell us? Aside from having a name for it? Aside from being able to judge it.

          The fundamental flaw in your attempted argument is that you believe that there is no such thing as a common reasonable assessment. That is patently false. A simple example of this a case where two people are walking towards one another on the sidewalk. In your belief system, neither owes anyone anything, and their behavioral assessment is subject to individual interpretation (hence “bad” behavior is only “relative” to the observer). Both are on a collision course, and not one will step aside for the other. Eventually there will be collision. So, tell us, great sage, how is your belief that there is no common code that would allow people to share a sidewalk going to work there? Come on. Tell all of us how your anarchist’s society would work. Hint: that is how children behave and that doesn’t work in an adult world.
          If it were up to you, anyone can “do and be whatever they want” since there is no “established” norm so there is not exact definition of the behavior being offensive to most people. That is the typical anarchist’s excuse, that “I am a free spirit, bound to no consideration for others, and my rules are more important than any other person — stay out of my way!”
          If it is noted that these people behave as children, and that these people are physically adults, then it stands to reason that they are less that the expected level of maturity. That tells us that these individuals have some “growing up” to do.
          = = = = =

          Again, I don’t mind the judgment. I just think that the judgment and the negative emotions towards a subject don’t really need specific words and scientific-sounding labels to be valid. You can just say ‘I fucking hate people who behave like XXX’. Fine.

          You can profess to any attitude you want. However, how you act (as in whether you are earnestly seeking the truth, or in contrast, attempt to deflect from the issue) is far more telling. In particular, it is you that is claiming that your opposition has “made a judgement” and that the judgement is that of a negative assessment of people who demand others support their delusion. Your attempts to avoid how accurate that is by concentration on the potential inability to ascertain the hyperbolic “mental illness” tells all of us that you take offence to this (so it really isn’t that “fine” to you).
          You want to “believe” that people are only holding an unsubstantiated prejudice towards those who think their delusion is more important than what the general consensus is. In this way you can rationalize it to be subjective and therefore avoid the unpleasant sensation of cognitive dissonance. Of course the reality is that people who think their “feelings” of identity overrides the observation of most others are, by that, self-righteous and irreverent of others. That is quite an immature attitude in any book penned by the “reasonable man” (including the DSM).
          = = = = =

          But beyond that, you have said nothing. You have basically said that you don’t like these people. Well, that’s not a scientific assertion. That’s how you feel about those things. There is nothing verifiable about it.

          I set forth to show that you were doing nothing but applying “argumentum ad ignorantiam”, so it was not necessary to “say anything beyond that”. You are trying to relate that the gradual delineation between certifiable “mental illness” and cannot-be-claimed-on-socialized-medical, plain childishness somehow means the behavior (asking that everyone support a private delusion) is equally not generally repugnant. That is basically appealing to ignorance. It is obvious and all the deflecting in the world isn’t lead observers astray.
          I did not, and have not used “my feelings” as support for how people generally see those who behave as adult “children”. In fact, I use the concept of the “reasonable man”. That basic tenet of observation seems to be foreign to you (or at least you pretend that it cannot be applied).
          Lol. “That’s how I feel” is not verifiable? What? Like someone cannot verify “how they feel”. Seriously, Tom you have long since lost this argument. You are just being obtuse now.
          = = = = =

          Perhaps you could appeal to ‘common sense’ (as you did) and make the assertion that there is a consensus over how one should feel about these things or how one should judge these things. Then the assertion would be something like ‘most people share a dislike towards behavior XXX’. That would be verifiable and rather ‘scientific’ (what does that mean?)

          Oh for shame, Tom. That’s standard subterfuge from trolling 101. You meander about, throwing out a falsehood there, a half-truth here and then arrive at suggestion that isn’t based on the conversation (as in you are trying to confuse people to the point no one knows what was actually said).
          Anyone can see that, in regards to the behavior (demanding that others support one’s own delusion of self-image … which is what one is asking for by trying to get legislative support for self-declared identification) I clearly suggested most people arrive at a relatively similar conclusion (and do so without prompting). To the honest individual, that is indicative of the concept of the “reasonable man”.
          It is you that misrepresents the record and try to invent that somehow I was using my own “feelings” as support (to which I challenge you to show, in context, where I have said or suggested such a thing). You have tried to use yet another straw man argument. Trolls often resort to this type of fallacious argument method. It’s far easier to spot that you seem to think.
          = = = = =

        10. Part 2.3

          Anyhow, I don’t see how saying something is mentally ill creates or adds any information. And yes, I do see this as a problem in the mental health industry. It’s all fucking vague. They claim it’s science, but it’s hardly so.

          Really? You are going to try to feign ignorance again? OK… we’ll play along… suggesting that demanding others support one’s delusional self-image is a manifestation of psychological dysfunction largely removes the notion that such behavior is anywhere within “mature and adult conduct”. To pretend that acting that way is “normal” (and “normal” because one believes the region of normal is stretched by the observer’s own perception) is attempting to draw attention away from how it is actually far from the norm. It’s like saying, “what’s the matter, it’s no different than innocuously preferring the color blue” as a way to white-wash it. Yet, it isn’t quite as benign.
          You then try to deflect into this apparent lack of discreet and well-defined values of “psychological state” as a problem with the mental health system. Nope. Not going to fall for that. Whether or not the psychiatric profession needs to create a benchmark system that is readily measurable and reported (even by the casual observer) does not mitigate the clearly dysfunctional behavior of demanding others support a self-image delusion.
          Defining the exact boundary in the geological timeline when the Eocene Epoch gave way to the Oligocene is not an exact measurement either… does it make Paleontology “not a science”? You sound like some person who denies they are “obese” because BMI is not “precise” enough and depending on some estimated variables, they could be either side of a cut-off value… never mind that getting “in the region” means that you are far from “healthy fat ratio”. Your logic is astoundingly unfit. Really, Tom. You argument is illogical.
          = = = = =

          You write: “it does not mean that one cannot see that certain individuals are well inside a region”
          Well, aren’t you practicing the exact kind of mystery mongering you accuse me of? What is this mysterious ‘region’? I am all ears. I think if pressed, you will intuitively fall back to giving examples of behavior that you associate with a certain ‘region’. That’s a categorization you learned, fine. But it’s hardly saying anything of concrete value. And neither is it precise.

          No. You absolve anyone who demands that everyone adhere to their special view of oneself as “not psychologically challenged” based on the potentially broad definition of “mental illness”. In contrast, I am suggesting that knowing the exact boundary is not required to see when someone has crossed it.
          Here’s another simple illustration of how that works… No one needs to know the exact boundary between ocean and dry land (and that constantly changes from wave to wave, and from low tide to high tide. However, if your feet are wet, well, you’re in the ocean (oh, and don’t try to say that maybe you are in a tidal pool or some puddle because that would be taking the analogy out-of-context). There you go. No “precision” was required. That is why your “logic” fails. Try again, Tom.
          = = = = =

          “To demand others identify with one’s special identity (“I’m a unicorn!”) is not well-adjusted behavior in any reasonable view.”
          Reasonable view? Sorry, what is that? And again, you do exactly what you accuse others of. You ask me to support your feelings about this type of behavior by appealing to ‘reasonable’.

          Nice try, Tom. Where am I “doing exactly what [I] am accusing others of”? I have neither asked you support my “feellings” about this, nor have I focused on any “feelings” I had on this. In fact, my assertion, from the start, was that you were resorting to the fallacy of “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam” in order to create some doubt where there really isn’t any.
          Yes, I stated that pretending those who, “demand others identify with one’s special identity” are not well-adjusted, is not a reasonable view. However, you misrepresent this to be an appeal to “reason”. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and will assume that you did not read that correctly (yes, look at where I said “at least one of the following conditions”). “…any reasonable view”, in context, is not asking you to be reasonable. No one cares whether you act reasonably or not. All I have to do is show that those who misinform the public by suggesting that “demanding everyone support one’s own delusional view” is within “well adjusted” behavior, are being unreasonable (or really have trouble comprehending the basic concepts of adult behavior).
          So, nope. I am not appealing to reason. I am showing that those who attempt to dismiss the notions set forth by this article via propaganda like “you can’t determine the exact boundary of mental illness (therefore the behavior is not self-serving and childish). Really, Tom. That you attempt all the expected evasive methods is proof enough that you know you don’t have a real case. Your ego is just getting in the way.
          This is the problem with those who think they can manipulate the public with pseudo intellectualism. It’s actually quite easy to refute. I can hardly wait to see what evasive action you will take next. (most of the time, the next step will be direct “Argumentum ad Hominem”… we shall see).

      2. I’ve got ten years experience in corporate America, and you can see how people that are weird get treated. They don’t get fired, but they just kind of quietly get a little box built around them and nobody really interacts with them more than necessary.
        Sure, but then you get that one real assholish boss who takes his red stapler, and then the nutcase burns the building down.

  15. “More and more institutions will be adopting this nonsense and the best thing to do is ignore it.”
    I am all over this approach.

  16. Whoever said the news is always negative isn’t reading this site. This is the best thing I’ll likely read all week.

    1. Oh, poor Grant Strobl. With that kind of publicity, he’ll never get a job as a bureaucratic functionary in a dead-end civil service position.

  17. I’ve joked about using “Lord” as my pronoun since this entire shitfiasco started, but I’ve never had the opportunity because I live far enough away from the (((liberal))) cities to have never experienced this mental illness in the wild.
    Bonus, though, is I live nowhere near the (((liberal))) cities, so I also get to avoid the gun-wielding dindus that “identify as innocent.”

    1. a funny thing…I am in the heart of a liberal city and I never heard about any of this shit until I started reading ROK and even know only hear about it through here. I am sure it is out there, but it can be avoided. IT is about the company you keep….at least in my experience.

  18. The new America needs more shitlords like this. The SJWs need to have their cages rattled, since they are experts are removing people from their circles and then preaching to the choir.

  19. Mocking is for cowards. Shaming and attacking is for the brave. Come on, bro, now you’ve been on the media with this “his majesty” bullshit. And now what? Did you get an internship at any stupid parasitic think thank due to your “activism”? What a world of feminized cowards.

    1. Lighten up Francis.
      Men routinely would mock the enemy across the field of battle before battle engaged. Mocking is neither cowardly nor brave, it’s simply a tactic.

      1. Don’t get yourself wrong: there is no field of battle here. Memes and soft activism do not serve any purpose besides getting featured at Breitbart or extending “activists” résumés to get a position in a think thank.

        1. So then we go ahead, sit down, be quite and let them win. Sounds great. Oh sure, we can “shame” them…how I’m not certain since they don’t feel shame, but otherwise, we just sit and take it in the shorts. Great plan.
          Field of battle or no, I was simply noting that your “mocking is for cowards” statement was not correct.

        2. Let me give you a little bit of context: I used to belong to the “conservative” student activism at my American university. It is pointless, we’ll never win doing stupid crap like this one. Now you may understand better my complaints.

        3. It’s not stupid at all. It has actually shone a spotlight on the idiocy and madness infecting campuses in ways that simply saying “These policies are wrong” doesn’t.

        4. Let me tell you that you are very innocent. Meanwhile, more millions of dollars are flowing towards both sides of the bi-party system. Are you ready to accept “transgenderism” in the same way you already accepted blacks, no-fault divorce and gays?

        5. Are you speaking to some other commentator here on the blog? Or what? What have I accepted? Wut?
          You’ve got to be younger. You seem to “have it all figured out” and want to preach to me as if you’re handing down revealed knowledge from your conversations with God up on Mount Ararat. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that I’ve actually been politically aware for a long, long time.
          Your only solutions are shaming, and “attacking”, which I assume means…violence? Correct me if I’m wrong. Shaming doesn’t work on the Left, they don’t even have a concept of shame. So you’re left with what tool? Attacking. Ok..um….go for it dude.

        6. I am speaking to you and yes, I am younger than you. My country went bankrupt (because older people’s greed) by the time I turned out 20, and decided to emigrate. I have been politically involved in both my home country and the US, leading a couple of aggressive boycott campaigns in the former and doing pathetic American-style student activism in the latter, which is what young Americans do, like the PolSci students such as the “his Majesty” guy of the article: http://www.grantstrobl.com/ (yawn)
          Shaming does work. There is nothing better than facing a 40 year old feminist activist and tell her that she has dried out and she will never have children and die alone surrounded by cats and antidepressants. Hint: start by the antidepressants and point out potential mental health problems.
          This is how things used to be in my country before American political correctness infested it: and there were no single moms nor feminists nor fat womyn because of shaming. BUT you need to have balls of steel to publicly shame, especially in a leftard populated university such as mine. The other alternative, is to “mock” and be “funny” and “play it cool” like His Majesty, which adds one extra line in his résumé to get into a think tank and then to the republican party. And the story repeats itself every year. Enjoy “transgenderism”.

  20. When this topic arose in one of my STEM courses, I announced that I would address all students as “Comrade” and that I would be known as “Dear Leader.” They all laughed and the matter never came up again.

  21. “The university, I am sure, has the best intentions at hand.” No they do not. Every single thing they do is in the service of their moral egos, and they are willing to destroy the nature and value of logic and reason itself to serve that end. So stop giving them that out.

  22. “I mean, I’m a straight guy, but, like we teach here, chasing women is not my identity and main purpose in life; do you think someone that identifies as a man or a woman based on what side of the bed they wake up on is really going to ever accomplish anything when that’s their most important part of their personality?”
    THIS. It’s better to be known for what you DO rather than who you are.
    I knew a guy who came out as trans and got his dick cut off. Everything about him/her is about being trans, that’s it. S/he somehow became somewhat internet famous, but that’s all because s/he is trans. S/he has accomplished nothing else of merit in his/her life and will probably never accomplish anything. S/he has skated through his/her adult life by gaining a sympathy safety net from people and being nothing more than a novelty (Who will probably end up dying early of a drug overdose or suicide if that statistics are true).
    And like you said, I’m also a straight male and my life is barely dominated by the fact that I like women. I mean, I’m sure my sexual orientation is subconsciously conveyed in some aspects of life such as social settings, but when I’m working or doing a hobby it’s not as some outlet for how much I love pussy. Matt Forney calls people like the gender confused you mentioned people who live for their orgasms/cummies. Their entire life is revolved around cumming, finding the type of person they want to cum with, changing the shape/gender of their genitals, etc. It’s definitely got to be a mental disorder to think so much about sexuality when it’s unnecessary.

  23. I’ve been going around as Count since the mid 2000s or alternatively as General Mufasa Magumbo Mobebe Abubu. I think in the spirit of this rather excellent display I will demand to be addressed as Grand Shogun Generalissimo.

  24. Political correctness black hole. Moving goal post. “Can’t…. quite….. get…. the carrot.”
    Fuck this nonsense.

  25. Can’t we just flip their script? When you call somebody he or she and they go all “I’m zir” reply thus:
    “You can call yourself whatever you please. But don’t go imposing your reality on me. If you are a he in my reality I will call you that.”

  26. Who is going to choose Lord God Almighty Creator ?
    I think this is funny as hell. I might have done this to turn it on it’s head!
    F*ck libtards.

    1. I’d go with my nickname and demand that all refer to me as Literally Hitler, or alternatively Supreme Reichsfuhrer of the Master Race.
      They can’t deny me my identity if they pick whatever random shit pops in their head! That would be discriminatory against all Hitlers!

  27. Oh God! My alma-mater strikes again! Yes, I confess that I am an alum of The University of Michigan. This was starting back in the late twentieth century. I apologize for the horror that they are inflicting on you.

    1. That report is Literally Hitler!
      The only thing I can get out of that is “zomg someone had humor!”.

      1. Literally. I wonder if the removed slide from the deck was a joke about “All Docs Matter”. These numbnuts need to get a grip.

  28. They only way this could be better is if he’d registered “My Nigga”, as in “Grant, my nigga, can you tell us the answer to question 4?”

  29. To play devil’s advocate: traditionally, ‘he’ is used to mean both ‘male person’ and ‘person of unknown gender’ but I can think of a few situations where a separate word to denote the latter would be useful. For example:
    Imagine that a woman murders a man. The police come across the body but find they don’t have much to go on; they believe that the man was murdered and the method used leads them to believe that there was only one murderer; beyond that, they have no clue. So they put out an appeal for anyone who might have any information which could prove useful to the investigation. Which pronoun should the police use to refer to the murderer in this appeal?
    ‘She’ can’t be used because at this stage the police don’t know that the murderer was a woman.
    ‘They’ would be a) Grammatically incorrect and b) Implying that there was more than one culprit.
    ‘He’ might discourage witnesses from coming forward because these potential witnesses interpret the use of the word ‘he’ to mean that the police believe the murderer to be a man; anyone who witnessed the murderess acting suspiciously around the time of the murder might think: “Well, that can’t be relevant; it can’t have been her because the police believe that the murderer was a man.” And thus neglect to furnish the police with helpful information.
    ‘The murderer’ is fine to use once or twice but would prove clunky and unwieldy when used multiple times in the space of a few paragraphs.

Leave a Reply

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