20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
4
0
Weird that her views on cimate change isn’t on that site.

To the Conservatives That Suddenly Love Camille Paglia

Lol. You just got punk’d.

The Weekly Standard, a conservative news magazine, interviewed Camille Paglia last week, and this was the headline: “Camille Paglia: On Trump, Democrats, Transgenderism, and Islamist Terror — In a wide-ranging interview Paglia talks about Donald Trump’s successes, how Chuck Schumer emboldened the ‘resistance,’ why the left can’t condemn Islamist terrorism, and ‘the cold biological truth that sex changes are impossible.’”

“Transgenderism”? “Islamist”? Well, you know conservatives were all over that.

So what’s the problem?

Well, Camille Paglia, with her personal brand of antifeminist feminism (quick Wikipedia briefer linked lol), has been actively hostile toward the feminist movement since the ’70s all while claiming to be a feminist herself.

Oh, wait. That sounds familiar.

But she’s not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination. On the surface, she might even sound like a liberal feminist (i.e., what you think of when you think of feminism); however, she is, to be decorous, marching to a completely different beat.

She was basically the prototype libertarian bro.

There’s no shortage of reasons why I can’t imagine that conservatives would laud her like they’re doing now (I will get to that). Let’s take just a few (as well as why they’re antifeminist, if they are).

She opposed prostitution laws: This is good in theory, but it completely takes the coercive nature of the sex-work industry out of the equation. Some people are forced into prostitution because of financial circumstances, sex-trafficking, and homelessness (especially young girls without guardians). Sex work, by all means, should be decriminalized so women are not punished. It should be legal to choose to do sex work, but to completely oppose regulation is to perpetuate the more sinister aspects of the industry.

Similarly, she opposes pornography laws: Essentially, the criticism is the same as above, but to a lesser extent. The porn industry is sexist and coercive, but women should never be criticized for working in it.

She opposes drug laws: This is in-line with feminism, but conservatives would not appreciate this. Peep what Jeff Sessions said about Mary Jane: “Good people don’t smoke marijuana.” (I guess that means I need new friends)

She supported John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, and Jill Stein: Ugh. Jill Stein. (She later has the audacity to call liberals “anti-science,” while voting for a woman who panders to the anti-vaxxers. Sensical.) Anyway, that isn’t really about feminism, but it definitely is something that would turn conservatives away from her.

She opposed abortion laws: This one checks out in terms of feminism, but considering abortion is the #1 issue for conservatives, I’m shocked they can overlook this one even in the face of their mutual views.

She wrote the gem, “Why I Adore the Penis, As a Radical Lesbian Feminist”: There are so many things wrong with this on so many levels, which I will get to, but barring those, she describes our favorite appendage in graphic detail. I can’t imagine conservatives are too into that kind of thing.

Actually I know they aren’t because I tried to post the link to that interview in the comments section of a conservative article that was praising her (you know, to inform), and I got blocked. Snowflake needs a safe space, I guess.
Why do conservatives love her all of a sudden?

Besides their desire to co-opt feminism for themselves, let’s just take a look at a few beliefs she expressed in the interview and over the span of her life.

She opposes affirmative actions laws

She believes rape is sexually motivated, but I’m not convinced conservatives believe this necessarily; however, among religious fundamentalists, there is a Phyllis Schlafly-like belief that marriage = a woman’s non-retractable, unconditional consent.

She says climate change is “a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence,” in the interview. This is where she accuses liberals of being anti-science, which is a good segue way into another contention.

She does not believe in distinguishing between sex and gender, much less anything Judith Butler proposes in her philosophical works on biological -sex-as-construct.

In “Why I Adore the Penis, As a Radical Lesbian Feminist” she basically glorifies male dominance through her praise of the good ol’ phallus. (Even though it’s graphic, I think it’s a sentiment with which many men who want to legislate women’s uteruses, people’s gender, and marriage implicitly agree, but maybe that’s presumptuous. Oops. My bad.) She also furthers stereotypes of lesbians as “banal” and gay men as having “such a sense of sexuality.” Ugh.

On the Daily Wire, another conservative news source, an article entitled, “Feminist Camille Paglia On Transgenderism: ‘The

Cold Biological Truth Is That Sex Changes Are Impossible'” appeared shortly after the Weekly Standard interview.

This is the type of “gotcha” shit I hate. “HA! We found a woman who calls herself a feminist but also opposes half of the tenets of liberal feminism AND berates feminist leaders in the process. Feminism really is flawed!”

“Ha! Ben Carson is black, so conservative politics must not perpetuate systemic racism.”

“Ha! We have a homosexual man who doesn’t believe gay marriage should be legal, so we aren’t homophobic.”

It’s just like their praise of the somehow-still-employed Bill Maher every time he lets his Islamophobic flag fly.

There will always be someone who backs up views that actively harm people who belong to that person’s demographic. It doesn’t suddenly invalidate entire movements that aim to undo systems of oppression.

I’m not saying there’s no way to agree with someone on some things and not on others, but the tone of these conservative defenses of Paglia don’t attempt to find common ground. They’re basically hollow attempts to “disprove” feminism by spotlighting a so-called feminist with whom they would usually vehemently disagree. But I guess the enemy of my enemy really is my friend.

“Why do you read conservative news”?

Preempting that bit of criticism, I don’t know. It’s on my Facebook feed a lot. I understand the whole “if you don’t like it, don’t read it,” and I agree. BUT I read it, and I just want to refute a gross lack of understanding of who Paglia is and how she actually positions herself within the feminist movement.

Also, I’m always trying to understand why conservatives are so obsessed with feminists. Make your own movement! Call it “equalism” or whatever the hell you want. Don’t try to co-opt feminism based on one outsider’s fast-and-loose takes on feminism. It’s disingenuous, and the writers of these news outlets know that.

But I guess it did get me to click.

https://medium.com/@allielong/to-the-conservatives-that-suddenly-love-camille-paglia-20b0fe29fc01
Not sure if the far-right will claim Paglia as one of theirs.

I don’t speak for the left, but I will say it’s unlikely they’d want Paglia speaking for them either, regardless of her support for Bernie.

Sort of like Richard Spencer speaking for conservatives because of his support for DJT.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
30,001
7,904
113
Does the far-right not believe in tornadoes either? TTC buses go to the intersection where the tornado damaged 600 homes in 2009. There’s a subway stop 2x major intersections away from where the tornado touched down.

https://weather.gc.ca/mainmenu/contact_us_e.html

Just thought I’d give you a link to those idiots who sent out the tornado warning for Toronto last summer. They need to be taken to the Church of McNasty.
They are living in denial. Climate change skepticism is part of their politics.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,568
2,904
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
They are living in denial. Climate change skepticism is part of their politics.
the Club of Rome admitted they invented global warming to create chaos to fore people to unite. a member admitted this in his book
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,568
2,904
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
4
0
With no small amount of irony, I’ve kept that book since a politics of environmentalism course I took at one of those leftist indoctrination elitist factories smart people call universities.

From The Nation article you posted:

But, Limits had its critics within mainstream journalism and academia. Foreign Affairs ran a review called “The Computer That Printed Out W*O*L*F*.” Three economists writing in The New York Times Book Review dismissed Limits as “an empty and misleading work…. Less than pseudoscience and little more than polemical fiction…. Garbage In, Garbage Out.” A Newsweek editorial called it “a piece of irresponsible nonsense.”

Another Newsweek article quoted a different set of prominent economists—Robert Solow (later awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics), Allen Kneese and Ronald Ridker—attacking the book. The latter two charged: “The authors load their case by letting some things grow exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments.” These were intellectually dishonest attacks; contrary to the claims by Solow et al., the book contained several scenarios that allowed for exactly what the economists claimed it did not, which is to say: unlimited resources, technology, pollution controls and agricultural production. Of the twelve scenarios in the book, seven ended in collapse, one in a sort of half-collapse and the rest in equilibrium. Admittedly, the most seemingly realistic scenarios had the worst outcomes. As the authors explained, without “major change in the present system, population and industrial growth will certainly stop within the next century.”
If you feel this undermines all evidence of climate change and/or theories on its inevitable consequences, you obviously haven’t been to Fiji, Solomon’s, Malaysia (sic) recently.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
28,733
6,512
113
They are living in denial. Climate change skepticism is part of their politics
Actually, we live in reality.

I have lived in Toronto (on and off) for 25 years, our winters have unfortunately not gotten any warmer. This is a fact!
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,568
2,904
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
I guess "Infowars" is like the Main Stream Media to You and "CNN" is an extreme left wing Media, as per one of your posts. Sums it up.
why don't you read publications and books written by COR members admitting they invented global warming to force people to unite under their rule? why are you afraid to read?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
30,001
7,904
113
Actually, we live in reality.

I have lived in Toronto (on and off) for 25 years, our winters have unfortunately not gotten any warmer. This is a fact!
I have lived here much longer than you and I have been shovelling less snow in recent years. Let's go by the true statistics and scroll down to the last two fields in the temperature and precipitation sections to see the lowest recorded Temperatures / highest record Precipitations and the years that it occurred:

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/forecasts/statistics/ontario/toronto
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
the Club of Rome admitted they invented global warming to create chaos to fore people to unite. a member admitted this in his book
I invented the idea that the Moon Landing was faked in order to trick Right Wing conspiracy theorists into believing me and and making fools of themselves.

I am writing a book about it. It will be published just in time for the Christmas shopping season. PM me for details.

:)
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
28,733
6,512
113
I have lived here much longer than you and I have been shovelling less snow in recent years
Also, less snow =/= temperature.

If anything when its extremely cold its less likely to snow
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
28,733
6,512
113
I invented the idea that the Moon Landing was faked in order to trick Right Wing conspiracy theorists into believing me and and making fools of themselves
Wanna know a secret?? Man did go to the moon, but the moon landing was indeed faked.

Wanna know how both scenarios are true and a fact??
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
28,733
6,512
113
https://www.accuweather.com/en/features/trend/too-cold-to-snow/6953983

Most heavy snowfalls happen with relatively warm air temperatures near the ground -- usually at 15 degrees F or above. When the temperature drops into the single digits, or below zero, heavy snow is unlikely. That’s not because it’s too cold, but because its too dry. When temperatures are that low, the air’s capacity for water vapor becomes very small
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts