Remember Back When They Said We Were Overreacting?

 

When they wanted to allow closeted homosexuals in the military, we said, “Soon they’ll be wanting to force us to recognize homosexual marriages, they’ll force us to treat every perversion as normal, and then your daughter or wife will have perverts wanting to use the same bathroom as them.”

I remember those days; oh, how they mocked us. They said we were absurd, ridiculous, a bunch of secret pedophiles ourselves, worrying about imaginary stuff that no one would ever, ever, ever want to inflict on us.

Yeah. I remember. Funny, huh? There is not a hint of a smile on my face.

Just this evening at dinner, my 14-year-old daughter told me that acquaintances (distant, she says) from school are saying that it’s a hate crime to refuse to date a transgender person. Such people are called “super straight” and some, being stupid kids, were recommending draconian punishments for super straights, including the death penalty. Kids are stupid. Progressive politicians have no minority status to excuse them.

Joe Biden, automaton for the progressive movement (which doesn’t excuse his complicity) has issued an executive order requiring schools to allow men who identify as women to use girls’ restrooms.

As soon as I’m done writing this, I’ll be sending a letter to Governor Abbot and my state representative and Senator to pass a law forbidding this. Executive orders do not equal law, and we need to stop this. I will not allow my daughter to attend a school that would do such a thing.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 114 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I try to be a nice guy, especially when dealing with the mentally ill, but every encounter (when I worked in retail) I have ever had with a tranny began with me stifling a laugh, and the urge to say, “You know you’re not fooling anyone, right?”

    And if you call yourself a tranny in good standing, and yet you haven’t had one added or had one chopped off, well neighbor, you’re just playing dress up.

    Even those who have undergone mutilation are just very expensive transvestites.

    True dat.

    • #61
  2. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    I think this is a argument about semantics. Slippery slope is just another way of saying, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile, or the camel’s nose in the tent. The camel’s nose is bad, but not as bad as it’s going to be getting soon.

    Slippery slope according to wikipedia: The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

    From owl.excelsior.edu: A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful conclusion.

    No matter what the slippery slope is, it ignores the existence of a deliberate intelligent force incrementally organizing and urging the progression or series of events.

    From https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope:

    “You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen. The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture. Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.”

    Ok that’s true, but practical usage of slippery slope argument – especially in this context – has always assumed the existence of a deliberate intelligent force incrementally organizing and urging the progression or series or events, and it’s relying on recent history and trends which is not the same thing as unsubstantiated conjecture; furthermore since we’re dealing in prediction there can be no “proof” until we live it – and that is exactly Skyler’s argument. It’s also true that past performance is no guarantee of future outcome, but I don’t think anyone is dealing in guarantees here. We’re all placing bets; some people are betting as if there is no magnet in the roulette wheel and a completely impartial croupier.

    • #62
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    I think this is a argument about semantics. Slippery slope is just another way of saying, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile, or the camel’s nose in the tent. The camel’s nose is bad, but not as bad as it’s going to be getting soon.

    Slippery slope according to wikipedia: The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

    From owl.excelsior.edu: A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful conclusion.

    No matter what the slippery slope is, it ignores the existence of a deliberate intelligent force incrementally organizing and urging the progression or series of events.

    From https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope:

    “You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen. The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture. Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.”

    Ok that’s true, but practical usage of slippery slope argument – especially in this context – has always assumed the existence of a deliberate intelligent force incrementally organizing and urging the progression or series or events, and it’s relying on recent history and trends which is not the same thing as unsubstantiated conjecture; furthermore since we’re dealing in prediction there can be no “proof” until we live it – and that is exactly Skyler’s argument. It’s also true that past performance is no guarantee of future outcome, but I don’t think anyone is dealing in guarantees here. We’re all placing bets; some people are betting as if there is no magnet in the roulette wheel and a completely impartial croupier.

    I don’t think that any of us are disagreeing.  It’s just that I’ve never heard the slippery slope rebuttal invoked except to disprove someone’s remark as being a logical fallacy, and I’ve wanted to make the point that you just made, that this ignores the existence of conscious planning.

    • #63
  4. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    And btw, a logical fallacy doesn’t demolish the whole argument, it just means that the fallacious part is too weak to stand anything up on. 

    • #64
  5. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Skyler: “Soon they’ll be wanting to force us to recognize homosexual marriages, they’ll force us to treat every perversion as normal, and then your daughter or wife will have perverts wanting to use the same bathroom as them.”

    I have said we are not a center right nation any longer. This has been a center left country now for possibly 20 years. That quote is proof. All the trends go to the left. The fact that the country does not rise against this absurdity is proof enough. 

    • #65
  6. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Ok that’s true, but practical usage of slippery slope argument – especially in this context – has always assumed the existence of a deliberate intelligent force incrementally organizing and urging the progression or series or events

    Who ever said it had to be deliberate?

    • #66
  7. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Ok that’s true, but practical usage of slippery slope argument – especially in this context – has always assumed the existence of a deliberate intelligent force incrementally organizing and urging the progression or series or events

    Who ever said it had to be deliberate?

    It doesn’t have to be, but in this case I think it has been, at least on some level.

    • #67
  8. Joe Boyle Member
    Joe Boyle
    @JoeBoyle

    If man, woman, sex have any meaning I wish, then the only limit is my imagination, Good luck with that. That’s not a slippery slope. It’s a cliff. There’s room for a Joe or two but we can’t all be Joes.

    • #68
  9. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Ok that’s true, but practical usage of slippery slope argument – especially in this context – has always assumed the existence of a deliberate intelligent force incrementally organizing and urging the progression or series or events

    Who ever said it had to be deliberate?

    It doesn’t have to be, but in this case I think it has been, at least on some level.

    Absolutely.

    • #69
  10. Marjorie Reynolds Coolidge
    Marjorie Reynolds
    @MarjorieReynolds

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Personally, I find it rude — and also deceptive — for a man to pretend to be a woman, or vice versa.

    I don’t know that it’s deceptive, any of them I’ve seen are fooling nobody. Pitiful is the word that comes to mind

    • #70
  11. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Marjorie Reynolds (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Personally, I find it rude — and also deceptive — for a man to pretend to be a woman, or vice versa.

    I don’t know that it’s deceptive, any of them I’ve seen are fooling nobody. Pitiful is the word that comes to mind

    I wouldn’t know, but I suppose if they were fooling anyone then you wouldn’t know.  

    • #71
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    I agree. If someone has that extreme a mental condition they undergo surgery, then I will refer to that person by the new sex and treat them with respect and dignity like I would anyone else – unless they become militant about it . . .

    How is that different from “I treat Conservatives with respect – unless they become militant about it…”?

    It’s not.  I’m not a big fan of militancy in general, and sometimes even conservatives can get too pushy when it comes to discussing issues.  I’m guilty on several counts myself.

    My beef is when people demand you like them or agree with them because of what they are, not who they are.  I know “what” and “who” are closely related when it comes to people, but I believe there is a difference.

    • #72
  13. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Stad (View Comment):
    My beef is when people demand you like them or agree with them because of what they are, not who they are. I know “what” and “who” are closely related when it comes to people, but I believe there is a difference.

    I don’t have to like or agree with Conservatives (or even respect them as human beings), but I do have to treat them as equals in the workplace and I do have to act in ways (eg including by not calling them Santorums) in the workplace that doesn’t make it a hostile workplace for them.

    (Or I should have to, imnsho.)

    There’s a clear difference between legislating what I can believe (good luck with that) and legislating how I can behave.

    Edited to add:

    And the sound of me complaining (endlessly) that I can’t always act on my feelings is the sound of entitlement meeting equality.

    • #73
  14. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Marjorie Reynolds (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Personally, I find it rude — and also deceptive — for a man to pretend to be a woman, or vice versa.

    I don’t know that it’s deceptive, any of them I’ve seen are fooling nobody. Pitiful is the word that comes to mind

    I wouldn’t know, but I suppose if they were fooling anyone then you wouldn’t know.

    With perhaps a few obvious exceptions that might have been intentional to make some kind of point, every TV show or movie I can think of that had a “trans man” (man who “became a woman”) character, it’s always been played by an actual woman.  Maybe because they just couldn’t find any “real” ones that looked halfway believable, or maybe they actually wanted to fool people into how successful the “transition” could be…

    • #74
  15. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Marjorie Reynolds (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Personally, I find it rude — and also deceptive — for a man to pretend to be a woman, or vice versa.

    I don’t know that it’s deceptive, any of them I’ve seen are fooling nobody. Pitiful is the word that comes to mind

    I wouldn’t know, but I suppose if they were fooling anyone then you wouldn’t know.

    With perhaps a few obvious exceptions that might have been intentional to make some kind of point, every TV show or movie I can think of that had a “trans man” (man who “became a woman”) character, it’s always been played by an actual woman. Maybe because they just couldn’t find any “real” ones that looked halfway believable, or maybe they actually wanted to fool people into how successful the “transition” could be…

    All I can think of is Sean Young?

    • #75
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Marjorie Reynolds (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Personally, I find it rude — and also deceptive — for a man to pretend to be a woman, or vice versa.

    I don’t know that it’s deceptive, any of them I’ve seen are fooling nobody. Pitiful is the word that comes to mind

    I wouldn’t know, but I suppose if they were fooling anyone then you wouldn’t know.

    With perhaps a few obvious exceptions that might have been intentional to make some kind of point, every TV show or movie I can think of that had a “trans man” (man who “became a woman”) character, it’s always been played by an actual woman. Maybe because they just couldn’t find any “real” ones that looked halfway believable, or maybe they actually wanted to fool people into how successful the “transition” could be…

    All I can think of is Sean Young?

    Mia Sara on “Chicago Hope,” Claudia Christian for “L.A. Law,” those come to mind immediately.  (For obvious reasons, aye?)

    • #76
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Krista Allen for “Married… With Children” …

    • #77
  18. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    My beef is when people demand you like them or agree with them because of what they are, not who they are. I know “what” and “who” are closely related when it comes to people, but I believe there is a difference.

    I don’t have to like or agree with Conservatives (or even respect them as human beings), but I do have to treat them as equals in the workplace and I do have to act in ways (eg including by not calling them Santorums) in the workplace that doesn’t make it a hostile workplace for them.

    (Or I should have to, imnsho.)

    There’s a clear difference between legislating what I can believe (good luck with that) and legislating how I can behave.

    Edited to add:

    And the sound of me complaining (endlessly) that I can’t always act on my feelings is the sound of entitlement meeting equality.

    Did you mean to shift ground from a workplace deciding RoEs during working hours and to government deciding what people may say?

    • #78
  19. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    TBA (View Comment):
    Did you mean to shift ground from a workplace deciding RoEs during working hours and to government deciding what people may say?

    We have rules of engagement (?) in the public space already, don’t we?  I can’t go around and address women as [female genitalia] no matter how free speechy we’re being.  

    • #79
  20. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Zafar (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):
    Did you mean to shift ground from a workplace deciding RoEs during working hours and to government deciding what people may say?

    We have rules of engagement (?) in the public space already, don’t we? I can’t go around and address women as [female genitalia] no matter how free speechy we’re being.

    In point of fact you can, legally. We don’t through the miracle of manners. 

    • #80
  21. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    TBA (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):
    Did you mean to shift ground from a workplace deciding RoEs during working hours and to government deciding what people may say?

    We have rules of engagement (?) in the public space already, don’t we? I can’t go around and address women as [female genitalia] no matter how free speechy we’re being.

    In point of fact you can, legally. We don’t through the miracle of manners.

    I think there’s more to it than manners. If I did this I would either be beaten up, or if the police were called they’d find a reason to arrest me. 

    • #81
  22. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Zafar (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):
    Did you mean to shift ground from a workplace deciding RoEs during working hours and to government deciding what people may say?

    We have rules of engagement (?) in the public space already, don’t we? I can’t go around and address women as [female genitalia] no matter how free speechy we’re being.

    In point of fact you can, legally. We don’t through the miracle of manners.

    I think there’s more to it than manners. If I did this I would either be beaten up, or if the police were called they’d find a reason to arrest me.

    Sure, but the point remains; not by law. 

    • #82
  23. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    TBA (View Comment):
    Sure, but the point remains; not by law.

    I get your point, I think, but if the police find a reason to arrest me anyway how law abiding are we? Actually Imho it says something about the law.

    Edited to add: I’m all for those two responses, btw.

    • #83
  24. Giulietta Inactive
    Giulietta
    @giuliettachicago

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I try to be a nice guy, especially when dealing with the mentally ill, but every encounter (when I worked in retail) I have ever had with a tranny began with me stifling a laugh, and the urge to say, “You know you’re not fooling anyone, right?”

    And if you call yourself a tranny in good standing, and yet you haven’t had one added or had one chopped off, well neighbor, you’re just playing dress up.

    I know what you mean. Several years ago I was at Lush, the overpriced soap/bath chain, with a friend. A salesperson approached us and when I looked up, I had the exact same reaction as you. A series of images hit me all at once. In no particular order I saw a skirt, a pair of very hairy legs, long flowing mermaid hair dyed blue, and a thick (yet wispy) beard attached to an otherwise very smooth feminine face. I have no idea what the biological gender of that person was or what direction he/she was headed in. It just looked like confusion to me. 

    • #84
  25. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Giulietta (View Comment):
    I have no idea what the biological gender of that person was

    Well, but what was the sex?

    • #85
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I try to be a nice guy, especially when dealing with the mentally ill, but every encounter (when I worked in retail) I have ever had with a tranny began with me stifling a laugh, and the urge to say, “You know you’re not fooling anyone, right?”

    And if you call yourself a tranny in good standing, and yet you haven’t had one added…

    Rush used to call that an addadictomy, or addadicktomy, which could also be seen/read as add-a-dick-to-me…

     

    • #86
  27. Giulietta Inactive
    Giulietta
    @giuliettachicago

    Skyler (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I would agree to call them by whatever name they choose, since that’s up to each individual. But their actual gender is not. So I’ll call him Loretta if he wants, but I would never refer to him as “her.”

     

    If it doesn’t want to be called “he,” then I will honor its request. But I won’t call it “she.”

    I had a student once who was “transitioning”. I got around it by always using the student’s name which luckily enough was flexible and that’s been my informal policy (known only to myself) ever since. “Have you seen X?” “oh yes, I saw X earlier.” It helped a lot. The student didn’t end up transitioning, btw. Tried it out, gave it up.

    • #87
  28. Giulietta Inactive
    Giulietta
    @giuliettachicago

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Giulietta (View Comment):
    I have no idea what the biological gender of that person was

    Well, but what was the sex?

    That’s what I meant actually. My bad. You see…this topic is a mess.

    • #88
  29. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Giulietta (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Giulietta (View Comment):
    I have no idea what the biological gender of that person was

    Well, but what was the sex?

    That’s what I meant actually. My bad. You see…this topic is a mess.

    I still get confused as to what a trans-man or trans-woman is.  Instinctively I assume a trans-man is a man trying to be a woman.  And I think I’m not the only one in these comments to do this.

    And I have no clue what a transvaal is, or in what category they should compete.

    • #89
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Giulietta (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Giulietta (View Comment):
    I have no idea what the biological gender of that person was

    Well, but what was the sex?

    That’s what I meant actually. My bad. You see…this topic is a mess.

    I still get confused as to what a trans-man or trans-woman is. Instinctively I assume a trans-man is a man trying to be a woman. And I think I’m not the only one in these comments to do this.

    And I have no clue what a transvaal is, or in what category they should compete.

     

    Don’t worry about Vaal, Captain Kirk took care of him/it.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.