I've always thought that the core of meaning in same sex attraction is the sex itself. Not some conceptualized disjointed and disconnected psychological and academic notion of identitarianism - but actual sex. Whose core expression is a fundamental and behavioral stick-to-it-ness of exactly what one is attracted to and why. Not to mention the how of it which is pretty germane to the issue. So when politics says you've got your sexual urges all wrong, it kind of winds up in that same hit zone as the classic narcissistic fixation on a self-absorption with one's attraction quotient - literally not being able to understand or accept the fact that a person as an example of objectified desire is just not interested. And it is not their destiny in life to help you understand the reasons why. Which is what every single trans (enormously tilted in trans women) fixation on what is curiously, a thing more like straight hetero (the irony should escape no-one) than anything else. But beyond all that. Identity as a ruling modifier for any code of behavioral definition becomes endlessly fascinating in those who don't actually claim any. Not by skin, politics, belief, sexuality, culture, or most any other measurable category. Otherwise it's a branded product on a shelf, forever confined by a consumer grab at a recognizable devotion to not only cookie-cutter exact sameness, but also that "you owe me as a loyal and consistent consumer" pack of demands as authoritarian and exacting as it gets. Now imagine yourself as the product. And your fellow "identity mob" as the consumers. That's my point. I still find myself wondering just what it is that attracts some people toward an instinctive autonomy in life. The wisdom (often stumbled upon early in life) that there will one day wind up being pretty much only two choices: a brutally cruel oversized chunk of one's time on earth spent arguing, debating, fighting, all because one tends to disagree with a conventional (or its very opposite) point of view. Or on the other hand, with considerable foresight, the realization that it is indeed a good thing to avoid that altogether, and just abide by one's disagreement for the most part, as silently and profoundly as some wild and solo thing out in the wilderness whose passage leaves no tracks, or evidence of its existence. There are still endless opportunities to socially voice one's opinions and disagreements without having to make it a life-consuming trap. I never was a joiner. The only thing I ever joined was the Boy Scouts for three years of my young life. I had a ball. But all this does not at all preclude a social life. On the contrary. One may find that their social opportunities skyrocket when they approach the society of people with an open mind and a clear heart. No Herculean efforts to have to hold up the weight of absolute and fundamental ideology of any kind. So in a nutshell - I guess I always saw woke as a kind of tradeoff - the entire sum total of all the beauty and wonder of the world, and what's in it, and how it all works - traded for a kind of religious baptism by fire in a devout need to "change" (?) the world for the better, apparently. How noble. The urge to mess and meddle rings hollow. Brings to mind all those glass houses I once heard about that people just seem to constantly forget they shouldn't live in. Not with all those stones about... (Love the book, by the way.)
![เปิดใจ "อาจารย์เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม" อดีตเคยสุดทุกทาง ถ้าใช้หนี้หมดไปบวชแน่ l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IxeE0xVhy08/mqdefault.jpg)
William is the only leader who understands these problems and who realises how insidious it all is.
I really would like to see an SDP government
I'm beginning to agree and wouldn't be averse to shifting my vote and take a risk.
Love SDP Talks!
Enjoyed the conversation. Thank you.
Oh my gosh, this gives me hope.
A shall be buying this book. Great interview :)
William is into hard bop! 😎
You have my vote.
'How Woke Won' is a really interesting read. Good to see a critique of the movement coming from the left.
William. Let the poor woman finish a sentence.
Yes!! Someone needs to tell him!
I've always thought that the core of meaning in same sex attraction is the sex itself. Not some conceptualized disjointed and disconnected psychological and academic notion of identitarianism - but actual sex.
Whose core expression is a fundamental and behavioral stick-to-it-ness of exactly what one is attracted to and why. Not to mention the how of it which is pretty germane to the issue.
So when politics says you've got your sexual urges all wrong, it kind of winds up in that same hit zone as the classic narcissistic fixation on a self-absorption with one's attraction quotient - literally not being able to understand or accept the fact that a person as an example of objectified desire is just not interested.
And it is not their destiny in life to help you understand the reasons why.
Which is what every single trans (enormously tilted in trans women) fixation on what is curiously, a thing more like straight hetero (the irony should escape no-one) than anything else.
But beyond all that. Identity as a ruling modifier for any code of behavioral definition becomes endlessly fascinating in those who don't actually claim any. Not by skin, politics, belief, sexuality, culture, or most any other measurable category.
Otherwise it's a branded product on a shelf, forever confined by a consumer grab at a recognizable devotion to not only cookie-cutter exact sameness, but also that "you owe me as a loyal and consistent consumer" pack of demands as authoritarian and exacting as it gets.
Now imagine yourself as the product. And your fellow "identity mob" as the consumers. That's my point.
I still find myself wondering just what it is that attracts some people toward an instinctive autonomy in life. The wisdom (often stumbled upon early in life) that there will one day wind up being pretty much only two choices: a brutally cruel oversized chunk of one's time on earth spent arguing, debating, fighting, all because one tends to disagree with a conventional (or its very opposite) point of view. Or on the other hand, with considerable foresight, the realization that it is indeed a good thing to avoid that altogether, and just abide by one's disagreement for the most part, as silently and profoundly as some wild and solo thing out in the wilderness whose passage leaves no tracks, or evidence of its existence.
There are still endless opportunities to socially voice one's opinions and disagreements without having to make it a life-consuming trap.
I never was a joiner. The only thing I ever joined was the Boy Scouts for three years of my young life. I had a ball.
But all this does not at all preclude a social life. On the contrary. One may find that their social opportunities skyrocket when they approach the society of people with an open mind and a clear heart. No Herculean efforts to have to hold up the weight of absolute and fundamental ideology of any kind.
So in a nutshell - I guess I always saw woke as a kind of tradeoff - the entire sum total of all the beauty and wonder of the world, and what's in it, and how it all works - traded for a kind of religious baptism by fire in a devout need to "change" (?) the world for the better, apparently. How noble. The urge to mess and meddle rings hollow. Brings to mind all those glass houses I once heard about that people just seem to constantly forget they shouldn't live in. Not with all those stones about...
(Love the book, by the way.)
жаль английского не знаю(