Postmodernism is over!

If the 'progressive left' keeps 'progressing', we can safely say that postmodernism is over.

Postmodernism is the view that there is no 'absolute truth': we can all decide what is true for each of us. (Now, of course, it had its internal logic problems, because if one person believed in 'killing infidels', a person of a differing viewpoint would not be happy to support them in their 'truth'.)

But let's suppose, for a moment, that the premise of postmodernism is true: that each person can have their own 'truth'.

Well, we've moved on now to what I've come to call sexualism. Sexualism is the view that your sexuality (or gender) is your true identity. It's the hobby horse of the 'progressive left', also known as SJWs, because they are trying to add a plethora of 'genders' somewhere in between the 'male' and 'female' categories.

Sexualism is not compatible with postmodernism.

The person who believes in more than two genders (or sexes, since there's no solid scientific support that the two are distinct) cannot accept a person who believes that there are only two. Their own intolerance leads them into hurling the insults of 'bigot' and 'extremist' (simply read the comments on my video).

Therefore, sexualism is certainly not compatible with postmodernism. It also presents a very dogmatic worldview based on pseudoscience and 'feelings' of people who are easily offended and think that a change in sexuality will make them a happier person. It is 'absolute truth' for them.

Keep it quiet!!!!!

Surely it's all about equality?
Surely it's simply human nature?
Surely it's...

Isn't same-sex marriage part of a 'progressive' society?
A progression towards... where? Is it really a step towards utopia?

So when Bermuda returns to traditional marriage...
Read about it here.
And here.
And here.

Firstly, no major newspaper is reporting on it. Why? Because it obviously doesn't further the LGBT agenda... can't have that, now, can we?

Secondly, those who are reporting on it are filled with comments such as:
"This is a human rights issue. We are taking away marriage equality rights from the LGBTQ community."
"I don't like to accept that it is OK to treat our sisters and brothers differently, whether fair or unfair, to treat them differently under similar circumstances."
"The fact that no country in the world has ever done this should give us pause. We will look foolish and oppressive..."
(That's one comment from each of the articles above, respectively.)

Thirdly, no one seems to be talking about why they've decided to do it. It's all about the bashing of the traditional marriage view.

Aren't we meant to be the most educated people in history? So what can't we apply reason and understanding?
- The reason "no country in the world has ever done this" is because same-sex marriage is rather new. One country has to be the first, just like UK was first to try to leave the EU. It's a non-argument.
- Is same-sex marriage really equal with heterosexual marriage? Of course not. Heterosexual couples, if all parts are working correctly, can produce offspring naturally. Homosexual couples cannot. Is a child brought up with two parents of the same sex as equally balanced as one brought up by one male and one female parent? There's clearly a difference.

Alas, no. It's just another chance to try to bash people into submission by name-calling: you're "foolish and oppressive"! So childish. That's the real 'progressiveness' of society.



UPDATE:
Now, a few days later, some of the more major news organisations are covering the story:
The Guardian
BBC
New York Times

But the question still remains... since it was such big news to allow same-sex marriage, why didn't the big corporations jump at the opportunity to report on another story on the same issue?

The answer should be obvious: the corporations are in support of same-sex marriage and don't want to give the public the impression that there might be something wrong with that ideology.

Brexit wreck

So apparently there has been a "breakthrough" with the Brexit negotiations.

The first step of negotiation is to know your position, specifically how strong it is. In the Western world, if you go into a shop which has marked prices (such as a supermarket) and you begin to haggle, you'll just get kicked out. This is because you don't have a strong position: the shop doesn't really need you. If you go to buy a car from a small business, then you can haggle, because your position is much stronger: they want to sell a car, and the profit they still receive is more important than the loss by a small reduction in price.

Politicians seem far too used to spending taxpayers' money with their enormous expenses, that they have no clue how to haggle. When it comes to Brexit, remember that the EU didn't want the UK to leave. Why? Because it sets a precedent: other countries may follow suit.

The breakup of the EU is a great step forward for countries to regain control of themselves, no longer being governed by a group of political elite from a conference room a long, long way away from the real situations. Of course, it would also prevent the EU from becoming a superpower, meaning there is no possibility for the EU leader to suddenly have control over many countries and very large land mass of the earth. In other words, the end of the EU is a step forward for democracy.

Now, the EU (the MEPs, to be specific) doesn't want that. Of course not. Why? Because their jobs only exist if there's an EU. These people (all politicians, remember) like having a huge expenses bill, and it's all paid for by money given to the EU by each individual country. They don't just get to spend their own taxpayers' money, they get to spend others' too! They get to travel all over the place, have a second house they can rent out because they hardly ever live there, have food provided at many functions (or eat out at expensive restaurants), stay in top quality hotels... essentially living a life of luxury, and when they retire, to have a huge amount of savings and investments because they've destroyed the government pension... and they don't want to give up that lifestyle!

Unfortunately, UK politicians are so blinded that they don't see that EU politicians are just the same as them, if not worse (because it's a larger scale). And that's the problem.

This "breakthrough" deal includes an EU "divorce bill" upwards of £35 billion.

If the UK parliament realised their strong position, they would know that they could just say, "We're leaving, that's that." Sure, there would be some repercussions... a trade deal might be lost, but the saving of so much money would be a great thing to help the UK economy to stay strong.

Or is it about people? It wouldn't be too difficult to put forward a plan to allow EU nationals who are already in the UK to remain (at least for a time, if not permanently), but to have stricter measures at the borders. After all, Trump managed to get a travel ban implemented rather quickly when he became president of the US. It wouldn't be a major hiccup.

But, at the end of the day, the "divorce bill" of such an amount is a complete joke. The EU has essentially managed to say, "You want to leave? We'll make you pay!" and the UK government have simply responded, "Okay."

What if we didn't pay? What would happen if we stopped the payments immediately?

Nothing.

Really? Why? Well, quite simply, what could the EU do? They only response would be to go to war over it. But in these modern times, who goes to war over money? It wouldn't seem justified. At any rate, if there was a war, the EU would need to spend a large chunk of that money to wage that war. Would they really want that? No, of course not.

And if a war were to be the response of the EU, it would be easy enough to call upon other countries who don't like the EU for help. The EU wouldn't stand a chance.

In conclusion, this "breakthrough Brexit deal" is a complete shambles, all due to self-centred politicians (many of whom didn't want to leave in the first place) who didn't realise the strength of the UK position. And with the UK suffering such a financial loss, they will be able to say to the country, "We told you we shouldn't have left."

Firefox also ignores preferences

I recently commented that Windows 10 updates makes changes to privacy settings without your permission.

Now, the latest Firefox update has changed it so that when I search in the address bar, it automatically uses the 'Bing' search engine... which I had previously deleted from my computer.

It's not too difficult to change back, but it shows how the big corporations will do whatever it takes to do what they want and meddle with your computer from afar.

"Your generation thinks you ARE black people!"

"A Millennial vs A Baby Boomer" - a must-watch!


Got questions with the title? Look here.
And here.
And here.
And here (gonna have trouble with that accent...).

A world gone mad

I recently came across this article about a training event held for primary school teachers in Canada. Their 'inclusiveness training' is to bring awareness not just to 'LGBT' issues, but to the 'LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP' community.

Yes, it sounds (looks?) like something made up.

It supposedly stands for:
Lesbian
Gay
Genderqueer
Bisexual
Demisexual
Transgender
Transsexual
Twospirit
Intersex
Queer
Questioning
Asexual
Allies
Pansexual
Polyamorous

This, of course, presents a problem because those who 'identify' as 'cosmicgender' aren't considered...

Apparently, this was intended to be a little 'tongue-in-cheek' (see here), with the aim to highlight the importance of inclusivity in order to attract people to the event.

But there are real consequences. Just how many letters can be added to the group? This article identifies 63, this one 71. This article might seem fairly complete...

According to Snopes, a representative for the Durham chapter of the ETFO said:
"...keeping track of diverse LGBTQ identities can be overwhelming, especially as our students are continuously identifying new ones."

And that is exactly the problem. It will just keep on growing whenever someone feels like 'identifying' as 'something else'.

It should therefore be evident that the world has gone mad.

"White privilege" is the new god

Here's what humanity has done over the last few decades...

1. The principles of Western civilisation were based on the Bible. Westerners typically believed in God. Although they didn't fully understand God, there was an acceptance of the moral standards that came with Christianity as being beneficial for the human race.

2. As science progressed, theories developed of a world that may not have been influenced by God. Although there is not a complete explanation, a 'theory of everything' (as Stephen Hawking liked to put it), and no idea how matter could come into being of it's own accord, scientists and atheists have pushed forward this view.

3. Atheist philosophers no longer accepted "I don't know" as a rational response to some of the tough questions (despite scientists using the same response when asked similarly tough questions). For them, God had to be fully understandable by humans, and God's actions had to be assessed by the moral standards of Western civilisation.

4. Instead of seeking for deeper reasons, the existence of wars and of the Israelite nation destroying the 'pagans' in the land by God's command were implied to show that God (if He exists) must be a 'nasty' God.

5. Instead of allowing for rational discussion, with each party seeking to expand their own understanding, all the atrocities and suffering of the current world were ascribed to God. Because God is assumed to have complete control over the world, surely He would stop the suffering... if He loves us?

6. The popularity of this notion furthered the idea that we don't need to take responsibility for our actions... if God exists, "He made me this way and He made me do it."

7. The irony is ignored. "If God exists, then He must have made me this way" is not satisfactory for anyone (Christians don't believe it and atheists don't like it), and so atheists use it as their reason for "Therefore God doesn't exist" (rather than, "maybe God didn't make me this way..."). However, if God doesn't exist, then they can't blame God for why they are the way they are... which would imply they they themselves are responsible.

8. But atheists don't like responsibility, which leads to many studies into what factors help make people the way they are: childhood upbringing, abuse, influences, etc. However, no study is completely conclusive because there are always some people who turned out well despite their circumstances: people who made good choices because they took responsibility.

9. Not having God to blame and not having sufficient evidence to blame 'circumstances', something had to be done. Enter 'white privilege'. It's the new concept which is not measurable, not fully understood, and certainly not allowed to be critiqued. It must simply be 'accepted'.

10. 'White privilege' allows people to not have to look at themselves for their troubles. It's their scapegoat. "I am what I am because... white privilege." 'White privilege' to the rational minded has all the same traits as God does to the atheist: not measurable, not fully understood, not allowed to be critiqued (because of it's non-existence), and must be the reason for why the world is the way it is. Just as God 'allowed genocide' (the Israelites killing other nations), 'white privilege' also allows genocide: the disempowerment of, abuse towards and disposal of... white people.

Hence, 'white privilege' is the new god.

But 'white privilege' won't get you out of trouble. It won't save your soul. It's simply a pseudo-reason for why your life is the way it is. It disregards a white person who is poor, and it disregards a black person who has 'made it'.

Will Smith? Barak Obama? Did they have 'white privilege'??

It's another excuse for people to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. Therefore, is it any wonder that the proponents of such an imaginary concept are liberals?