Bush the Lesser was always careful to say "I believe." Not only is that an out, it's not challengeable. Belief is held sacrosanct, possibly because of religion.
If you saw Matt Walsh's film What is a Woman then you saw a tenured professor of "queer studies" named Patrick Grzanka pronounce that the search for truth is "transphobic." He act…
Bush the Lesser was always careful to say "I believe." Not only is that an out, it's not challengeable. Belief is held sacrosanct, possibly because of religion.
If you saw Matt Walsh's film What is a Woman then you saw a tenured professor of "queer studies" named Patrick Grzanka pronounce that the search for truth is "transphobic." He actually said this.
As the tsunami of foolishness that is postmodernism continues to roar into our lives the idea of objective reality has lost ground to "lived experience," the supremacy of individual perception. That truth is relative would have been until very recently an absurdity but it has become mainstream.
There is only one interviewee in that movie I didn't want to strangle, the psychiatrist who tells it like it is. Who acknowledged the role of social contagion in "trans."
The Smile woman ("does a chicken have a gender identity?") who said that puberty blockers were no more harmful than pausing playback on a CD (smile) actually gets to prescribe the shit. And that professor who has the temerity to call himself a scientist actually said that seeking the truth is "transphobic," and he didn't qualify that at all.
Walsh came out of the experience of making the movie as a frothing rabid bigot, saying some shockingly violent things. If I had flown all over the country just to get lied to and lied to and lied to, I doubt I would have done much better.
“ Walsh came out of the experience of making the movie as a frothing rabid bigot.”
Nah, Walsh went into the movie that way. He was just smart enough to keep his mouth mostly shut as he spoke to these people so the spotlight remained on their awful takes instead of his.
Aside from his appearance on Carlson, he kept his biases scrupulously masked.
It seems like everyone who saw that film is disgusted with his interviewees. The professor was the worst ("truth is transphobic; I'm a scientist") but that woman who evaded answering questions just as badly lied even more. Puberty blockers are completely reversible (smile). Does a chicken have a gender identity (smile)? And she prescribes this muck.
But by keeping his biases concealed, Walsh made a major contribution to the discussion. But it's sobering to note that a frothing right-wing bigot is the voice of reason here.
Bush the Lesser was always careful to say "I believe." Not only is that an out, it's not challengeable. Belief is held sacrosanct, possibly because of religion.
If you saw Matt Walsh's film What is a Woman then you saw a tenured professor of "queer studies" named Patrick Grzanka pronounce that the search for truth is "transphobic." He actually said this.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&ei=UTF-8&p=what+is+a+woman+documentary&type=E211US714G0#action=view&id=37&vid=86382265a51839cc1036ce877940954c
Start at 5:45
As the tsunami of foolishness that is postmodernism continues to roar into our lives the idea of objective reality has lost ground to "lived experience," the supremacy of individual perception. That truth is relative would have been until very recently an absurdity but it has become mainstream.
"Start at 5:45"
His students should get a refund with additional punitive money.
He should get a mob beating.
There is only one interviewee in that movie I didn't want to strangle, the psychiatrist who tells it like it is. Who acknowledged the role of social contagion in "trans."
The Smile woman ("does a chicken have a gender identity?") who said that puberty blockers were no more harmful than pausing playback on a CD (smile) actually gets to prescribe the shit. And that professor who has the temerity to call himself a scientist actually said that seeking the truth is "transphobic," and he didn't qualify that at all.
Walsh came out of the experience of making the movie as a frothing rabid bigot, saying some shockingly violent things. If I had flown all over the country just to get lied to and lied to and lied to, I doubt I would have done much better.
“ Walsh came out of the experience of making the movie as a frothing rabid bigot.”
Nah, Walsh went into the movie that way. He was just smart enough to keep his mouth mostly shut as he spoke to these people so the spotlight remained on their awful takes instead of his.
Aside from his appearance on Carlson, he kept his biases scrupulously masked.
It seems like everyone who saw that film is disgusted with his interviewees. The professor was the worst ("truth is transphobic; I'm a scientist") but that woman who evaded answering questions just as badly lied even more. Puberty blockers are completely reversible (smile). Does a chicken have a gender identity (smile)? And she prescribes this muck.
But by keeping his biases concealed, Walsh made a major contribution to the discussion. But it's sobering to note that a frothing right-wing bigot is the voice of reason here.
“[I]t's sobering to note that a frothing right-wing bigot is the voice of reason here.”
[Ahem] I beg your pardon?