28 thoughts on “Change You Can Belay

  1. Imagine if Mitt Romney would have said during the 2008 campaign “if Obama is re-elected, you will be forced to allow drag queens into our girls locker rooms”. He would have been laughed off the campaign.
    So the question is, what’s next for the loony left?

  2. And the security guard, who appears to have done a perfect job in handling the situation, is a lesbian. So I think I have this right. Maybe Betsy Hodges can correct me otherwise.
    2008: Black (sic) trumps woman (Democrat presidential primary)
    2011: Homosexual trumps black (for leftwing causes)
    2016: Drag queen trumps lesbian
    2017: I can’t wait to see what they come up with next

  3. There is another nasty application for this; more or less, the DC Police are setting the precedent that if someone touches another person who refuses to honor the requests of the owner of private property, that is assault.

    Try to work as a security guard or bouncer with that limitation. You more or less need to call the police every time someone refuses to honor a request and wait ten minutes while they trash the place. Just what the nation’s crime capital needs, eh?

  4. “the DC Police are setting the precedent that if someone touches another person who refuses to honor the requests of the owner of private property, that is assault”

    Used to be that the police in IL solidly opposed carry permit laws, because it meant that anyone who needed armed security had to hire an off-duty cop.

    Are the DC Police trying to shut down the competition? To ensure that if a business needs a security guard, they need to hire an off-duty cop?

  5. We’ll be seeing less pushback on this subject as the generation of Boomers die off.

  6. Schools spend more on football (a boy’s sport) than on all girls sports combined. Nerds hate that. But nobody cares what nerds think so they invented the claim that spending based on what students want is secretly discrimination based on sex. Congress passed Title IX to require schools to spend as much on girls sports as they spend on boys sports, which has morphed into treating boys and girls equally, which is now morphing into treating boys who think they’re girls as girls. The Obama Administration’s latest letter is only a step down the road to the ultimate goal. Separate But Equal was declared unconstitutional nearly a century ago. Boys and girls showers must no longer be separate, they must shower together to ensure they are treated totally equally. Boys will love that but girls will hate it, so girls will quit girls sports to avoid having to shower with guys, which will require the schools to end boys sports so the money comes out equal under Title IX. The nerds will have won.

  7. We should aspire to judge a person by the content of their character not by the color of their skin or the function of their genitalia.

  8. When you can successfully attack “reason,” you are 2/3rds of the way to the Brave New World.

  9. Emery Incognito said:

    “We should aspire to judge a person by the content of their character”

    Should we really aspire to exercise judgment on children, by their character, before they have a chance to develop that character? Should we abandon good judgment ourselves so we can do so? Emery Incognito is a fool.

  10. Emery Incognito on June 1, 2016 at 12:51 pm said:
    We should aspire to judge a person by the content of their character not by the color of their skin or the function of their genitalia.

    “Equality” is another way to say “the same”. No two people, not even identical twins, are indistinguishable. Differences in skin pigmentation are nothing — it’s like eye color.
    Sex profoundly affects the physical development of human beings from the womb until death. No old women, for example, die of testicular cancer. What’s more, you can’t remove sex from a human being. A human being who does not receive the proper dose of male or female sex hormones at puberty doesn’t end up being a sexless human being, he or she becomes a freak with a host of physical deformities.
    You can’t make everyone the same, but you can make them all equal in the eyes of the law.
    The problem is that nobody wants this, except maybe white males and Libertarians. Women don’t want a judge to toss a coin when it come to awarding the custody of children when a couple breaks up. The choice to abort a child belongs to the mother, not the father, and certainly not the child, Blacks and Hispanics don’t want universities to end racial preferences in awarding government contracts and university admissions.
    The question in 2016, after half a century of rule by the New Left, isn’t about equality under the law, it’s about which groups the government will privilege and de-privilege. All rights come from other people, any right you have you get by taking it from someone else. If you want to use a public restroom restricted to members of your sex, you give up that right, and ‘transgendered’ individuals gain the right to use the restroom of their choice.
    If it makes sense for women to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, it certainly makes sense for men to vote for Trump because he is a man.

  11. Flexibility in bathroom use goes hand in hand with respecting the humanity of those who do not fit traditional gender roles.

  12. Emery Incognito on June 1, 2016 at 9:14 pm said:
    Flexibility in bathroom use goes hand in hand with respecting the humanity of those who do not fit traditional gender roles.

    That is an opinion, Emery. It is not a fact.
    Let me try a different tack.
    There is a natural reason why it takes a single man and a single woman to procreate. There is no natural reason why only that one man and one woman can successfully raise that child to adulthood. There may be reasons why that is best, but these reasons are social, not biological. They have to do with what people value.
    So who determines what people value? It would be great if we could all just pick our own values, but no man is an island. The reason why politics is difficult is because it concerns values that cannot be reduced to objective fact. There is no way you can use science to prove that same sex marriage is wrong because there is no way to use science to prove that heterosexual marriage is right.
    So who decides if men and women must use separate toilet facilities? Science can’t tell us, any more than it can tell us whether it is right or wrong for certain religious sects to avoid sharing a meal with people from outside their religion. You can go by tradition, which may contain accumulated knowledge about whether certain values are successful, or you can go by a democratic process. If you go by a democratic process, you at least are assured that a majority of citizens has a stake in the success of whatever decision has been made.
    It is also possible for tradition or democracy to allow leaving decisions to individuals or smaller groups.
    Where you can get into trouble is when you allow a minority to make value decisions for the majority based on power alone. There is no reason why a Justice Department that decides this year that no male may lawfully be kept from a women’s toilet facility will not decide next year that the age of sexual consent will be thirteen years (I am certain that you could find social science that would support this). It is arbitrary rule by a de facto aristocracy, and it is an affront to republican values.

  13. Your comment insists on looking backwards. Smart conservatives avoid trying to move backwards in time.

  14. Because jackass amoral depraved brain-dead progressives like eTASS always look forward and never learn from history.

  15. Emery Incognito said:

    “Flexibility in bathroom use goes hand in hand with respecting the humanity of those who do not fit traditional gender roles.”

    No, it doesn’t. It is the distracting “stupid progressive policy” of the week, which we subscribe to whenever we elect progressive politicians. Progressives say “yeah, sure, that’s another relatively trivial human right you just made up there!” and conservatives say “shouldn’t we have _some_ logical basis for policies, and do bathroom policies have to be a federal government thing?”. They fight, both are distracted, goal achieved.

    “Your comment insists on looking backwards. Smart conservatives avoid trying to move backwards in time.”

    Looking isn’t moving, and you’re not the one to give advice to “smart conservatives”.

  16. I think the focus on social issues will fade as the boomers die.

  17. “I think the focus on social issues will fade as the boomers die.”

    of course from the viewpoint of 2116 that will be true but for the here and now it will take 30-40 years for the boomers and their accumulated powerbase to die off – waiting them out is not a productive or rational strategy.

  18. “Emery Incognito on June 2, 2016 at 6:02 am said:
    Your comment insists on looking backwards. Smart conservatives avoid trying to move backwards in time.”

    The argument that “x is on on the side of history” (aka the progressive argument) is really just an appeal to power, Emery. “We had the power to make x happen, we wanted x to happen, we made x happen, it was destiny that x would happen.”
    Anyhow, no serious historian believe that history has a purpose (from what non-human source would it come?), any more than evolution has a purpose..


  19. kel on June 2, 2016 at 10:24 am said:
    “I think the focus on social issues will fade as the boomers die.”

    of course from the viewpoint of 2116 that will be true but for the here and now it will take 30-40 years for the boomers and their accumulated powerbase to die off – waiting them out is not a productive or rational strategy.

    The problem with the Boomers and social issues is that a minority has imposed its moral views on the majority. This is unprecedented in American history. Before the 1960s, progressive attempts to morally improve the entire country had the support of the majority, usually large majorities.

  20. I would submit this issue is much less important to the more tolerant young adults of today. Do your children and/or grandchildren have the same perspective as you with regard to this topic?

  21. And yes, my children feel the same way as I do, Emery. I’m not telling them to beat the **** out of men in the ladies’ room, but I am telling them how to take precautions. And quite frankly, if I’m on a jury for someone accused of removing a man from the ladies’ room, I’m voting to acquit. Being in the bathroom or locker room is a point of vulnerability because you literally have your pants down. We shouldn’t have to deal with this.

  22. Emery Incognito on June 2, 2016 at 11:46 am said:
    I would submit this issue is much less important to the more tolerant young adults of today. Do your children and/or grandchildren have the same perspective as you with regard to this topic?

    People grow more socially conservative as they age. This is because they have a larger stake in society. Young people feel like social outsiders.
    All I can do is repeat that the idea that history is going in a certain direction is an illusion (unless you are religiously inclined). The problem historians have when trying to fit a narrative on history is you have to pin point the source of the narrative. If people are solely creations of nature, they can have no more purpose than nature has. Empirically, in the West once excluded groups are more integrated into society, but once included groups are being forced out. In other parts of the world, modernism was a short lived phenomenon (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey). The idea of the majority being ruled by a self-interested elite is hardly progressive, this was how all civilizations were run before the enlightenment.

  23. I would submit this issue is much less important to the more tolerant young adults of today.

    Not getting decked as often these, eh Uncle Creepy?

    I suspect that may be more the result of the tolerance string bean arms are forcing on millennials.

    Still, there enough men around to make the odds pretty good you’ll get knocked the fuck out again sooner or later.

  24. would submit this issue is much less important to the more tolerant young adults of today.

    You submit wrong. Again. And again. And again.

  25. Much too small and narrow a sample size to draw any conclusions (except for the readership) on SiTD.

  26. The science part is easy.The human part is hard.
    It is absurd. If you study orangutangs, and you discover that some percentage of orangutangs engage in sexually ambiguous behavior, this doesn’t tell you anything about orangutangs. It tells you about the researcher.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.