Centering the centrism
This is where centrism gets you, especially radical centrism.
Split the difference, yeah? Call him “she” if you like him or think he’s a centrist or want to annoy some non-centrist pedant who knows what pronouns are. Call him “he” if he veers too far to the left or the right. Either way you’re obviously better than everyone else.
Candidate one proposes that we kill all the babies.
Candidate two proposes killing no babies.
Candidate three declares candidates one and two “extremists”, and suggests the compromise of killing half the babies.
Did I do it right?
Arcadia #1
That’s the spirit!
Here’s how I once put it:
Once again, the “2+2” debate has been hijacked by extremists who argue that the value of 2+2 is either as low as 4 or as high as 6, while those who hold more nuanced views, like, say, 2+2=5 are shut down from both sides.
Meanwhile the “final solution” debate is totally dominated by those nutters who advocate killing all the Jews and those crazy radicals who don’t see the need to kill any Jews at all (!), while moderates, who acknowledge the need to kill half the Jews are attacked and vilified from both sides.
And don’t get me started about the debate over the shape of the Earth, where rabid Flat-Earthers and the equally deranged Round-Earthers have created such a toxic climate of cruelty and hate that moderates, who argue for a lens-shaped Earth, are increasingly afraid to speak out.
And it looks like we have an update from the 2+2 Wars. The 6 Camp has changed its position to 2+2=8 while the 4 Camp keeps stubbornly clinging to its increasingly untenable views. As good moderates we therefore embrace the original position of the former (i.e. 2+2=6) as the reasonable, moderate, responsible, non-extreme view.
And finally a soccer result: Manchester City vs. Watford: 10-0, in other words a draw.
If the position is “you do whatever you like” I don’t really see the problem; annoying to be sure, but compelled speech is compelled speech.
Wut?
So it’s compelled speech to say “No 2 +2 is not 6”?
I’ve written this before about female intermittent ‘pronoun respectors’:
This is a poor position for two reasons. First, calling any man ‘she’ allows every man to believe that if he tries hard enough or can pretend to be nice long enough (and the ‘enough’ would be decided by the man in question) that he can earn, and would be entitled to, the right to be called ‘she’. Second, calling any man ‘she’ reduces his perceived threat level when in fact any man who insists on being called ‘she’ should actually be assessed as a greater threat to women and children.
It’s like dealing with my neighbor’s dogs. They bark at me every time I’m working in my yard. So I give them treats, to show them that I’m a friend and not a threat, and they really appreciate that. They have also learned that in order to get treats, they have to bark at me every time I’m working in my yard.
Hahaha you should bill your neighbor for the treats.
Note that I do not use trannies’ “preferred pronouns”, but if you tell someone else they mustn’t your only realistic expectation is to be told to go fuck yourself, and that’s a position I can respect while finding it utterly ridiculous…
A neighbour of my late mother in law unintentionally conditioned her dog to lunge and bark at people by bribing the dog to stop by giving her a treat. Just who was training whom? Added bonus irony: the dog owner was a psychologist.
YNnB: Yeah, treats are useful for training, but you have to be sure the proper behavior is the one that’s actually being reinforced. It’s really easy to mess that up.