SJW Seppuku

This is Gay Pride day, I gather. Or something. Somehow or other I encountered online today a Mercedes Benz commercial, extolling homosexuality and Mercedes vehicles – many other aspects of high end modernist taste appear in the ad, too. I won’t link to it. You can find it if you want to. It’s a gorgeous ad, I must say; impeccably done. If I was homosexual, I would find it wonderfully attractive.

But I’m not. So, I found it disgusting.

My immediate thought: “I guess Mercedes doesn’t want straight men to buy their stuff any more.”

Or live in modernist houses; or wear tight clothing.

That’s what will happen. Men flee from associating with anything that might possibly seem to impair their manhood.

Which is all good. Fine with me if  Madison Avenue convinces almost all men to start hating tight suits and modernist architecture. That could only be good, despite the loss of Mercedes.

But, I hate to lose Mercedes, that bastion of automotive virtue.

It makes no sense to me. Why would a company that wants to succeed volunteer – indeed, go out of its way, at tremendous expense – to associate its products with something that 94% of men find more viscerally repulsive than raw feces?

There must be a death wish involved. I suppose that in his guts, and despite all his antic, desperate rationalizations, the inveterate sinner reckons and abhors his sinfulness, and in his horror wants to destroy it in the only way he understands: by destroying himself.

Oh well. Too bad about Mercedes. They made beautiful cars. But I shall never be able to look at them in the same way, or even consider buying one.

149 thoughts on “SJW Seppuku

  1. Pingback: SJW Seppuku | @the_arv

  2. Funny, I feel the same way about Fords that you do now about Mercedes.

    It’s also pretty funny to think that Mercedes and its ad agencies are “SJWs”. I can assure you, whoever made that ad also did audience research and produced an analysis predicting that it would be a good, ie profitable, thing to do. Of course, they could be wrong. But such types are not motivated by social justice unless they have calculated that it will help move product.

    I can also assure you that every large local tech company, and probably most non-tech companies, will be represented in the San Francisco Gay Parade parade. I have not noticed men fleeing from working at Google, or using Google, despite the corporate embrace of gay rights and gay pride.

    It’s curious to me that you live in the San Francisco area. There are plenty of areas where your values are dominant, why live where they make you a despised minority?

    • Yeah, I catch your drift. It’s discouraging.

      Nevertheless: males who do not thus flee are not full grown men, or even fully differentiated boys. They are arrested somehow in their development. Their manhood is already a bit ruined.

  3. Pingback: SJW Seppuku | Reaction Times

  4. Heterosexual men will flee from a product that is associated with being gay, but not from a product that is associated with supporting gay pride. The later is, at present, a high status opinion, just as a Mercedes automobile is a high status possession. The two go together like ham and eggs.

    Homosexuality is not as low status as it once was, but there are plenty of disadvantages to a heterosexual man who is misidentified as homosexual due to misleading consumer choices. He will be (1) hit on by homosexuals, (2) disregarded by women, (3) shunned by those heterosexual men who are uncomfortable around homosexuals.

    I learned this when I lived in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C., in the early 1980s. My life was much more pleasant if, through clothing, haircut, jewelry (none), and even posture, I sent out a strong “hetero” message. In those days I couldn’t afford any car, much less a Mercedes, but a certainly would have fled a car that said “homo.”

    At the moment, the winning combo is to consume products that signal heterosexual virility, such as a costly motor car, and that also signal high-status opinions, such as a costly motor car from a gay-pride-supporting company such as Mercedes Benz. That’s how you get women, and thats what 98% of the behavior of 98% of males comes down to.

    • That’s how you get women,

      Well, that’s how males who are afflicted with arrested development get females who suffer from their own form of arrested development (otherwise known as a propensity to sin and vice; the inability to recognize sin and vice as such – to mistake it for virtue). The adolescent male in this story is a good case in point:

      http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a27890/woman-leave-pool-bathing-suit-inappropriate/?src=socialflowTW

      Such young “men” tend to be their own worst enemies relationship wise, and sadly don’t know it. Probably going to be a short marriage for him, unfortunately.

      and thats what 98% of the behavior of 98% of males comes down to.

      Yes, I agree with that – 98% of the behavior of 98% of males comes down to what they think will get them the “women.”

      P.S. any bathing suit that spends half its time on the back side bunched together in the wearer’s crack is effectively a “thong.”

  5. I associate myself with JMSmith’s comment. Being supportive of fashionable high status political causes is different from personally craving sodomy, and the two have been successfully segregated in modern perception.

    • Zippy & JM: That’s the thing about this Mercedes commercial that rather shocked me. It associated driving a Mercedes (and living in a modernist house and wearing tight clothing) with engaging in homosexuality, in just the way that Marlboro and Dodge Ram ads associate their products with cowboys engaging in tough, masculine, outdoor work and heterosexual camaraderie.

      • One ad does not define a corporation’s moral or social philosophy. It is simply a message aimed at a specific target audience. I’m sure Mercedes has other ads that are aimed at target audiences you all would consider more appropriate.

      • I’m sure Mercedes has other ads that are aimed at target audiences you all would consider more appropriate.

        So you’re basically saying that *you* consider ads extolling the “virtues” of sodomy more appropriate than, or at least *as appropriate* (*equal to* in “appropriateness”) their opposites?

        And, btw, promotion of deviant sexual behaviorisms *does* define a company’s, family’s, city’s, state’s, nation’s (whatever – any corporate body’s) morality.

      • I am not a homosexual and therefore I do not wish to engage in homosexual behavior. I’m not threatened by and do not wish to persecute homosexuality as statistically, the LGBT community probably will never exceed more than 4% of the population as a whole.

      • Terry @ I think the ad is extolling the virtue of extolling the virtue of sodomy, and by extension, of a very permissive attitude towards sexual conduct generally. It tells us that high-class people are cool with this, which is rather different than high-class people do this. Like so much of modern morality, it is simple virtue signaling. One isn’t required to do or refrain from anything, only to condone and condemn the right behaviors in other people.

      • Per the quote in Zippy’s comment below:

        “[A]ccording to the teaching of the [Roman Catholic] Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)”

      • I am not a homosexual and therefore I do not wish to engage in homosexual behavior. I’m not threatened by and do not wish to persecute homosexuality as statistically, the LGBT community probably will never exceed more than 4% of the population as a whole.

        Their *numbers* are the least of my worries, Winston. As I have said many times before, I can *hardly* take my family into a public venue these days without my (impressionable) children being exposed to homosexual deviancy *extolled as virtuous*. If *you* don’t understand this very basic and hard fact, it is indication that you lack first hand experience, and/or, you find it unimportant. Therefore you’re simply ignorant and/or uneducated to the facts.

      • I love how you guys like to label people as ignorant, uneducated or lacking understanding when their views differ. I get that you want to live in a world where advertisers do not direct their advertisements (and therefore tacitly endorse) homosexuality.

      • I love how you guys like to label people as ignorant, uneducated or lacking understanding when their views differ.

        If you and I disagree, and we have communicated successfully, there is a limited set of possibilities: either I am wrong, you are wrong, or both.

      • I haven’t read every comment in this thread closely. Who insulted you, and what exactly did that person say that was not just disagreement but insult?

        My own impression of your rhetoric is that it is largely ad hominem, as you are always going on about how mean and insulting people putatively are. This strikes me as a rather ironic way to in effect insult and attempt to shame folks when you’ve run out of substantive arguments.

        Perhaps you find the impression you really have made on me insulting though.

      • winstonscrooge:

        What I (or you) do or don’t feel isn’t relevant. Your rhetorical methods – – ad hominem, and consistent use of shaming language (while ironically objecting to shaming) – are available to public inspection, e.g.

        https://winstonscrooge.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/the-fruits-of-the-spirit/

        But you still haven’t said precisely who insulted you (as opposed to disagreeing with you), or how, in this thread. Maybe it all isn’t really about you, or how you feel.

      • So you feel that my pointing out an ad hominem attack is itself an ad hominem attack and (for some reason) a greater crime than the original ad hominem attack?

      • I observe that you have a hard time staying on topic, and that the various fallacies and distractions you reflexively employ are transparent.

      • In what way do you feel I have strayed from the topic? We have a legal system for punishing criminal offenses. The day that homosexuality, not going to church on Sunday or taking the Lord’s name in vain are made criminal offenses we can then discuss the various punishments you feel are appropriate. Until then you can make (and deny making) all the veiled ad hominem attacks you want and then act like the victim when you are called out on them.

      • If you believe that the legal system properly employs shame and threats of violence to get people to behave morally you’ve obviously conceded the point.

      • I don’t know if the legal system employs shame per se. I guess you could argue imprisonment is a kind of threat of violence. Execution certainly is. Why do you think that amounts to a concession?

      • Zippy:Is it insulting to be told that you are wrong when you are, in fact, wrong?

        That’s frequently when people most take insult.

      • … Therefore you’re simply ignorant and/or uneducated to the facts.

        There is at least one other option. Ducks don’t have to quack to be promoters of “the duck agenda”.

      • Winstonscrooge:

        [A]ccording to the teaching of the [Roman Catholic] Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies

        Full stop! Those who *act upon* those tendencies are in a different category. Likewise with their advocates.

        Don’t tell me you make no distinction between homo ads that extoll the virtues of extolling the virtues (thank you Prof. Smith for providing me the distinction) of sodomite sex acts and ads that refrain from doing so.

      • Winstonscrooge:

        I love how you guys like to label people as ignorant, uneducated or lacking understanding when their views differ.

        Fair enough. Please demonstrate how your differing views are based in knowledge or understanding.

        How many children have you, Winston?

      • I have two children Terry. And yes they do you get exposed to a lot of what you describe. To my knowledge they are not among the 4% of the population who happen to be homosexual. Nor do I think being exposed to an advertisement that is directed to the homosexual community is likely to make them adopt that lifestyle if they are not already part of that subset of the population.

      • Nor do I think being exposed to an advertisement that is directed to the homosexual community is likely to make them adopt that lifestyle if they are not already part of that subset of the population.

        A distinction has already been made between persons with homosexual tendencies and persons with homosexual tendencies who act on them. Do you think persons with homosexual tendencies are more or less likely to act on them when the society normalizes/embraces the behavior? Moreover, do you think such persons are more or less likely to come out of the closet when the society normalizes the behavior? Should or should a person not be *ashamed* of such behavior?

        Meanwhile, the commercial isn’t primarily directed at the homosexual community in any case, as Prof. Smith has shown above. And if it were just one solitary commercial extolling the virtues of homosexuality, the effect would be negligible.

        But we all know the reason behind painting deviant sexual behavior as “cool” and honorable and virtuous is to normalize and make it more acceptable among the general population.

        Personally I have never concerned myself with whether exposure to homosexuality would influence my kids to become homosexual; my concern, to the contrary, has always been that frequent exposure to homosexuality, painted in the way I describe above, would tend to dull their senses to the evil of homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy.

        I do my very best with my kids to make sure that doesn’t happen. To a growing percentage of the population this makes me an unfit parent. But so be it! I’m a lot more concerned about whether I’ve offended God than whether I’ve offended degenerate man.

        Read Romans ch. 1 and internalize it!

      • Do you really think it was better when gay bashing was acceptable behavior? I don’t. Now has the pendulum swung too far in the other direction? Perhaps but I suspect it will find its proper mid point eventually.

      • “Gay bashing.” That’s kind of like “body shaming,” right?

        What I think is irrelevant. I’m not one to try to improve on God’s design, nor to question His authority. But there is quite literally *nothing* good that comes from homosexual deviancy. Such people are twisted, and the innocent and impressionable must be protected against their influence.

        A sane society would outlaw sodomy and other forms of sexual deviancy, and strictly enforce those laws.

        I don’t care anything about “gay bashing,” but I’d force them all back in the closet were that within my power.

      • Winston: let me address you more specifically. You wrote:

        Do you really think it was better when gay bashing was acceptable behavior? I don’t.

        It’s a loaded question. On the one hand, I don’t know what the phrase “gay bashing” means. It seems like it could cover a whole lot of stuff I would find perfectly reasonable and acceptable; on the other hand you might mean to confine it to violent acts targeting homosexuals or a kind of vigilante justice. I don’t know.

        Now has the pendulum swung too far in the other direction? Perhaps

        No, not perhaps. Absolutely.

        but I suspect it will find its proper mid point eventually.

        Perhaps it already has.

        What is that “proper mid point” you’re talking about? Is it one of those things of which we don’t know what it is, but we’ll know it when we get there?

      • This might be a point where we must agree to disagree. I don’t believe that shame and threats of violence are proper means to get people to behave morally. It merely makes them hide which makes the problem worse because they will either double down on their immoral behavior in secret and or they will become angry and resentful and then will lash out like terrorists when they have been pushed too far or find the right opportunity.

      • winstonscrooge:

        I don’t believe that shame and threats of violence are proper means to get people to behave morally.

        Are shame and threats of violence a proper way to get people to refrain from committing murder? Or should police and prisons be abolished?

        Once you’ve agreed that shame and threats of violence are sometimes a proper way to get people to behave morally, we’ve agreed what we are and are just haggling over the price.

      • winstonscrooge:
        You haven’t at all – let alone adequately – addressed the fact that the legal system employs shaming and threat of violence to get people to behave in a manner which the law considers moral when it comes to certain behaviors (like murder, theft, and baking cakes for sodomites). If you think that is proper then you’ve conceded the point: sometimes shaming and threats of
        violence are a proper way to get people to behave morally.

      • winstonscrooge:

        Why do you want me to approve of shaming people?

        You could be making the mistake of believing that when folks point out problems and inconsistencies in your public comments it means that they care what you personally think.

      • winstonscrooge (to Zippy):

        Why do you want me to approve of shaming people?

        He doesn’t *want* you to approve of shaming people. What he wants is for you to be honest with yourself and others about the fact that you already *do* approve of shaming people in certain and various cases.

        This has already been established in various contexts, you yourself have admitted it, and yet here we are all over again rehashing the same old argument, wasting energy on something that has already been laid to rest.

        I think the real question is why do *you*, winston, find it necessary, expedient, worthwhile etc., to resurrect a dead point when all it will result in is to show, once again, that it isn’t shaming you have a problem with, but shaming of behaviors you think ought not be shamed. Then devising all sorts of speculative, unverifiable reasons for why the particular behavior in question (homosexuality, provocative dress, whatever) should not be shamed in your view.

      • All I have ever said is that I don’t think shaming people is an effective means of achieving a moral result because it only produces negative results. This interchange proves my point.

      • Who says it only produces negative results, and how does this interchange prove your point?

      • It’s a pretty well established psychological phenomenon. Gershen Kaufman and John Bradshaw are two authors I could point to off the top of my head. “Healing the Shame that Binds You” by John Bradshaw is a good book that describes the shame dynamic in pretty good detail. Specifically he describes how people who derive pleasure from shaming other people were typically shamed themselves by a primary care giver.

        This interchange is an example of how when one person attempts to shame another person that person naturally wants to return the favor.

      • Specifically he describes how people who derive pleasure from shaming other people were typically shamed themselves by a primary care giver.

        Okay, at the risk of seeming nitpicky, that’s not what you said above. You said that shaming *only produces negative results*. That’s the statement my question (who says?) was directed at. Does Bradshaw argue that shaming only produces negative results, or is he referring to a specific and limited group of people – people who derive pleasure from shaming – who were typically subjected to excessive shaming by primary caregivers (their parents and/or guardians)?

        This interchange is an example of how when one person attempts to shame another person that person naturally wants to return the favor.

        I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring here. Who attempted to shame whom to initiate the process? Can you provide links to the specific instances in question?

      • Winstonscrooge @ Is there any behavior that you consider shameful, and therefore deserving of shame?

        It seems to me that Americans were shamed for littering, and the results were not negative. Remember the weeping Indian? Actually, looking around my town, we could use another round of that shaming.

        What I know of this psychological literature comes by way of Christopher Lasch, who disliked it intensely, so I don’t have an unbiased view. One thing I took from that, though, was the difference between shaming behavior that actually deserves to be shamed (such as tossing hamburger wrappers out the window), and shaming a child for simply existing. The former is a perfectly healthy form of social control, the later is abuse and, as you say, always negative.

        Of course it is not always easy to keep the shaming of a shameful behavior separate from the shaming of the person, particularly when that person is a child. Saying that “a big boy like you should be ashamed to wet his bed” can perhaps too easily come across as “there is simply no excuse for a boy like you” and you are (in Lasch’s words) “absolutely unworthy.”

        No one should be told they are “absolutely unworthy,” but the campaign against shaming clearly means to neutralize normal, healthy shaming. The campaign against “fat shaming” must, for instance, remove social checks on the sins of gluttony and sloth. The campaign against “slut shaming” must likewise removed social checks on lust. This is not simply a left-wing tactic. The motto “greed is good,” which really goes back to Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, clearly removes the shame of avarice.

        Lasch argued that we live in a “shameless society,” but this is only partly correct. What we have is a moral inversion where it has become shameful to believe that the behaviors traditionally regarded as shameful are in fact shameful and deserving of shame. Such a person is called “judgmental.” Well, shame on him!

      • JMSmith, I recognize that shaming is a common practice and probably is required in certain circumstances. But I think (based on personal experience and research) that it is often used inappropriately. That is, it is used to shut people down by making them feel bad about themselves. Often the motivation behind this is because the shamer had been shamed themselves and is passing the shame along to a perceived weaker opponent. In other words there is a lot of deceitfulness involved in the shame dynamic. Often people are not fully aware of their own motivations. This makes sense because shame is all about hiding one’s self out of a fear of being judged. Before Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge they were “without shame.” Once they ate and their eyes were open they hid themselves. You might say, once they acquired shame they were no longer true to themselves and God.

        It is for this reason that I am opposed to shame in general as a tactic to get people to behave morally. Not only does shame cause people to act in-authentically which negates the morality of their actions to an extent but it also creates resentment and a desire to lash out against the person who shamed them and if this is not an option to vent the shame on a perceived weaker target. And the cycle continues on and on.

        Does shame exist and is it sometimes necessary to achieve a desire result? I suppose but in my mind it should not be the preferred method. I admit that alternative methods such as compassion and making people aware of what they are doing is probably much more difficult and not practical or possible in certain situations.

      • winstonscrooge:

        I recognize that shaming is a common practice and probably is required in certain circumstances.

        Then we’ve established what you are, and are merely haggling over the price.

      • Speaking of homosexual degenerates becoming angry and resentful and lashing out like terrorists when “they have been pushed too far,” here is wealthy sodomite and LGBTQ causes mega donor, Tim Gill, explaining to Rolling Stone Magazine the next phase in his plan to “punish the wicked” in southern states.:

        http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/meet-tim-gill-megadonor-behind-lgbtq-rights-movement-wins-w489213

        Mr. Gill, I am sure, is completely unaware of the “shame dynamic” at work here, and of his own underlying motivations. Someone needs to introduce him to Bradshaw’s book. Winston – why don’t you give Mr. Gill a call and explain all of this to him. I’m sure you can convince him to cease and desist terrorizing “the wicked” among us. After all he seems like a perfectly reasonable person.

      • I’m not really clear on your point Terry. According to the article you link to Mr. Gill seems to be working within the legislative process to affect a desired result.

      • Mr. Gill is clearly angry/outraged about any and all opposition to the degenerate homosexual agenda. You’re not clear on my point because you don’t want to be clear on the point. He is going to use the legislative process to *punish* the opposition which he calls the *wicked* opposition. This has also been a threat coming from the radical feminist front and abortion advocacy. Stop being ridiculous.

      • No. Do you? You’re the one who brought up the whole “shame dynamic” to start with, not me. Part of which apparently (according to you, not me) results in anger and terroristic activities leveled against the perceived perpetrators who originally “shamed” them.

      • What you mean to say is “that doesn’t mean *I believe* all anger has its roots in shame.” That’s good to know.

        Just to be clear, I’m not at all sold on the whole “shaming dynamic” theory of inordinate hate driven behaviorisms to begin with. I think it *extremely unlikely* that Gill is bitter and angry, and is intent on “punishing the wicked” because someone or other shamed him in his past. I find it far more likely that his mind is reprobate, and that is explanation for his psychopathic anger and hatred of decent, God fearing people.

      • Winston:

        There’s a shocker! Lol.

        Your impressions of me you derive from my writing are based on your extra-biblical world and life view, Winston. That’s “what of it” when we get down to brass tacks. I don’t have any control over that *if* I’m being honest. But the homosexual (and sexual liberation in general) movement/lobby and its agenda is clearly diabolical. It therefore ought to elicit righteous anger. Even the perfect man, Jesus of Nazareth, experienced anger – He in turn made himself a whip and chased the money changers out of God’s Holy Temple.

        “To everything there is a season.”

      • But there is quite literally *nothing* good that comes from homosexual deviancy

        You must be joking. Half of the western culture you people claim to revere is the product of homosexuals.

      • winstonscrooge:

        This might be a point where we must agree to disagree.

        We can do that, sure. However, …

        I don’t believe that shame and threats of violence are proper means to get people to behave morally.

        The point is *not* to get them to behave morally, but simply to behave (keep it to themselves; don’t flaunt it) for the good of the broader society, particularly impressionable children.

        It merely makes them hide which makes the problem worse because they will either double down on their immoral behavior in secret

        Do you have solid, irrefutable evidence to support that claim, or is it just your opinion? I don’t know that it’s true, nor do I necessarily accept it is true that they will “double down” on immoral behavior in secret as a result of shaming, but in secret is where it belongs in any case.

        and or they will become angry and resentful and then will lash out like terrorists when they have been pushed too far or find the right opportunity.

        Whatever his excuse, a terrorist ought to be treated as such by the proper authorities. When this is done, all of a sudden terrorism is not an appealing or logical option for most.

      • Zippy:

        He was told (by me) that he is ignorant, and/or, not knowledgeable of the facts. Which of course is not an insult, but merely an observation.

        Were I to say he is a “jackass” or a “dipshit” or the like, then that would be an insult, and he would be right to take offense and call me out on it.

      • Terry Morris:

        That was the impression I got: that he found the contention that his statements are wrong and or ignorant insulting — independent of whether his statements are in fact actually wrong and or ignorant.

      • He was told (by me) that he is ignorant, and/or, not knowledgeable of the facts. Which of course is not an insult, but merely an observation.

        Actually let me back up; I got a little ahead of myself there. I didn’t even go that far. What I said is that he is either ignorant of, and/or, not knowledgeable of the facts if in fact he does not see certain things, which again is not an insult.

        Were I to say he is a “jackass” or a “dipshit” or the like, then that would be an insult, and he would be right to take offense and call me out on it.

        But of course were I to have said something like that no one except myself and the moderators would know it since it is a violation of the comments policy. Then I would be forced to “double down” in my insults towards winston in secret, and/or, to terrorize him in some other way. Ha, ha.

      • a.morphous:

        You must be joking. Half of the western culture you people claim to revere is the product of homosexuals.

        Assuming (I’m not generally in the habit of assuming much of anything, but for the sake of discussion in this case) that is true, is it the result of *homosexuals* or of *homosexual deviancy*? In other words, does ‘loosening the reins’ on homosexual deviancy poduce good or bad results overall?

        *No one (including myself) has said homosexuals are not creative, inventive, intelligent and so forth.

      • Were I to say he is a “jackass” or a “dipshit” or the like,

        To which list (“or the like”) let me add “a moron,” a “complete moron,” a “blooming-ass idiot” and etc.

        Why do I not say such things about Winston (or a.morphous for that matter)? Well, because I don’t believe them to be true of either man. Both winstonscrooge and a.morphous are *valued* interlocutors imho. I generally tend to (vehemently) disagree with them, yes; but I *do not* generally count either of them as “idiots” or anything like that.

      • … but I *do not* generally count either of them as “idiots” or anything like that.

        If you *did* “generally count either of them as “idiots” or anything like that”, then it would be morally wrong for you to engage them, for you would be taunting them. The thing is, an idiot cannot help it if he is wrong (or, for that matter, right), for, by definition, such a one is incapable of properly understanding the matter.

      • Ilion, agreed. I hadn’t ever thought of it in those exact terms before, but now that you mention it I do tend to be in the habit of *not* engaging persons who have convinced me they are indeed “idiots”. But anyway, thanks!

      • Terry Morris:I hadn’t ever thought of it in those exact terms before, but now that you mention it I do tend to be in the habit of *not* engaging persons who have convinced me they are indeed “idiots”.

        I suspect that what such people really convinced you is that they are intellectually dishonest (I’ll explain this in a bit) — *but* that, like most people, you have been indoctrinated (and haven’t yet grasped the falseness of the indoctrination) that it is somehow “immoral” to judge another to be intellectually dishonest, and even more “immoral” to express the judgment.

        What I said earlier about it being immoral to continue to “argue” (*) with a person who *is* an idiot (**) — or whom one has judged to be an “idiot” (regardless of whether he really is an idiot) — follows from my realization some years ago that there are three, and only three, general categories of reason that a person asserts a false proposition —

        1) The person is an idiot: that is, he truly/honestly believes the false thing he asserts *and* (being that he *is* an idiot) he is wholly incapable of understanding that and why his what he (believes and) asserts is false. As I explain below, I don’t believe that there are many idiots in the whole world (and I’ve never encountered one in my 60 years);

        2) The person is ignorant: that is, he truly/honestly believes the false thing he asserts *and* he is capable of understanding that and why what he asserts is false, *but* he presently lacks some logically prior knowledge or understanding that would enable him to grasp the erroneous nature of the false thing he (believes and) asserts;

        3) The person is either “merely” lying or he is intellectually dishonest (***): that is, *while* he is capable of understanding that and why what he asserts is false, he either:
        3a) consciously knows that it is false, but for various reasons or perceived benefit asserts it anyway;
        3b) consciously employs various levels of self-deception … and, in the end, conscious-and-deliberate illogic … so as to pretend, to himself and to others, that he doesn’t know it is false.

        It really isn’t all that difficult to identify an intellectually dishonest person — it has to do with illogic and irrationality. For instance, when a person will not concede even the simplest truth that has been rationally demonstrated to be true, or when a person consistently employs illogic and even outright irrationality so as to protect the false assertion from disconfirmation, then that person is intellectually dishonest. Generally, such refusal is because this simple truth begins the unraveling of the false rationale for the false thing he is asserting.

        (*) My scare-quotes around the word ‘argue’ above are because from that point the interaction isn’t arguing, it’s squabbling.

        (**) For the record, I’m not convinced that there are all that many true idiots in all the world. Even the people who are recognizably retarded — that is, mentally slow — are not *really* idiots. That is, it’s not the case that a retarded person is wholly incapable of understanding some ‘X’, but rather that it takes him longer to build the mental substructure underlying such understanding … and most people, generally including the retarded person himself, lack the patience to put in the effort/work to attain the understanding.

        (***) Generally, I distinguish between “mere lying” and intellectual dishonesty; but for the present purpose, “mere lying” folds into intellectual dishonesty. The difference between the two is that “mere lying” is episodic, while intellectual dishonesty is systemic. That is, the “mere liar” is lying about some specific thing, and while he does indeed wish to deceive those to whom he is lying, he also wishes to keep his lying limited to that thing. On the other hand, the intellectually dishonest person is lying about *everything*, for he is lying about the very natures of truth and of reason. The “mere liar” is not intending to dispute the very natures of truth and of reason, but merely the truth of some specific thing: his lie *depends* upon truth are reason being what they are.

      • Ilion:

        Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out. I’ll address the parts I think need clarification in the way of what I have written in this thread, vs how you interpret (of which my own intellectual laziness is primarily to blame) parts of it.:

        I suspect that what such people really convinced you is that they are intellectually dishonest

        Your suspicion is correct. Like you, I don’t believe there are all that many genuine idiots in the world; if I’ve ever run into any they amount to no more than a mere handful, and at least four of them were likely not actual idiots in any case.

        — *but* that, like most people, you have been indoctrinated (and haven’t yet grasped the falseness of the indoctrination) that it is somehow “immoral” to judge another to be intellectually dishonest, and even more “immoral” to express the judgment.

        Well, basically all of us were indoctrinated to one extent or another. But, no, I don’t have a problem with calling out intellectual dishonesty for what it is. I don’t always do it when I see it (or think I see it) but that’s not because I think it immoral, or insulting, to do so. 

        Indeed, winstonscrooge can testify first hand to the fact that I’m perfectly willing to call out intellectual dishonesty when I think it necessary; I have told him explicitly on at least one occasion (at his own place) that he is being intellectually dishonest concerning the issue of abortion for example *in service to his agenda to defend liberalism at all costs*, and that this is really *beneath him* or at least should be; I have implied this is the case with him on numerous other occasions, in various other contexts.

        I agree with your distinctions between (1) an actual idiot, (2) someone who is ignorant for various reasons, and (3) an intellectually dishonest person.

        In any case, the real reason for raising the issue of calling someone an idiot *who is clearly not an idiot* was to try to help Winston see that saying he is unknowlegable or ignorant of certain facts was not intended as, and in fact is not, an insult. 

        We – winston and me – have had these discussions before about whether a mere observation about a person and his beliefs is the same thing as an insult. He tends to be quick to take as insult something said about him, or of his views, or of the faulty reasoning behind those views, that simply isn’t. 

        He can be, and is at times, a little thin skinned in other words. There are of course reasons for that, and I think I know what at least some of those reasons are based on numerous exchanges I have had with winston, but that’s all really beside the point. My purpose in all of that is to help him come to these realizations on his own over time.

      • In any case, the real reason for raising the issue of calling someone an idiot *who is clearly not an idiot* was to try to help Winston see that saying he is unknowlegable or ignorant of certain facts was not intended as, and in fact is not, an insult.

        Indeed, it is not. But when a person is being intellectually dishonest about some topic, he will grasp at *anything* to deflect the argument against his position.

        The intellectually dishonest person’s motto might as well be (following Seinfeld’s George Costanza) “It’s not really lying if you believe it.”

      • But when a person is being intellectually dishonest about some topic, he will grasp at *anything* to deflect the argument against his position.

        True enough.

        I wonder whether it would serve any purpose to point out to Winston the fact that attributing to him a lack of knowledge or ignorance on one of his positions is more charitable than accusing him of intellectual dishonesty. If a person lacks the requisite knowledge or experience necessary to form a proper opinion on a given matter, that of course is not necessarily his fault, or at least *all* his fault.

      • Winstonscrooge:

        We have a legal system for punishing criminal offenses.

        If the legal system doesn’t identify criminal behavior as criminal, then it isn’t therefore criminal.™

        The day that homosexuality, not going to church on Sunday or taking the Lord’s name in vain are made criminal offenses we can then discuss the various punishments you feel are appropriate.

        Legal = moral, in the land of lies.™

        Until then you can make (and deny making) all the veiled ad hominem attacks you want and then act like the victim when you are called out on them.

        Life sucks and then you die. Victimhood is a bitch.™

      • Half of the western culture you people claim to revere is the product of homosexuals. — a.morphous

        Lol… And to the masses, this “product” is now the anti-product and essentially dead.

        Only a fool believes the foundation of creation is homo-sexualizaton.

      • Winston:

        I don’t know if the legal system employs shame per se.

        The legal system employs shame; it treats as shameful and disgraceful certain kinds of, well, what society deems to be shameful and disgraceful acts. E.g., drunk driving; trafficking of child pornography, lewd and lascivious conduct, etc.

        I guess you could argue imprisonment is a kind of threat of violence. Execution certainly is.

        I imagine that by “threat of violence” Zippy meant something more like having armed police officers enforcing the law either by threat of physical force or at the point of a gun when necessary.

        Why do you think that amounts to a concession?

        Because it *is* a concession if you agree that any of those means are justifiable in certain cases. Once that is established we’re just arguing flavors of ice cream. I like Rocky Road; whereas you might prefer Rum Raisin.

      • Prof. Smith:

        Well said here: https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2017/06/25/sjw-seppuku/#comment-108180

        As I’m sure you’re very much aware, people can and often do tend to be creatures of extremes. All of this anti-shaming rhetoric we see from winstonscrooge seems to me a pretty good case in point.

        As always, a good upbringing, a good education, a well organized community or society and so forth involves the establishment of a *proper balance* between competing interests (e.g., positive vs. negative reinforcement).

        It *horrifies* me to think that I were so obsessed with the possible negative outcomes of shaming shameful behavior in one or more of my children for example, that I should risk “flooding the ballasts” on the opposite side as it were and sinking the entire ship! And the inverse of that is also a horrifying thought for me.

        I believe this extends to a societal level as well.

      • winstonscrooge:

        I recognize that shaming is a common practice and probably is required in certain circumstances.

        Zippy:

        Then we’ve established what you are, and are merely haggling over the price.

        Well, I’m not sure we’ve fully established what he is; he does try to give himself wiggle room by qualifying his statement with the word “probably,” after all. But of course if he is unsure of himself then he certainly ought to say so.

        He seems more sure of himself in other statements in the post. For example, he uses the word “often,” well, often – ‘often (a) leads to (b)’; ‘often (c) = (d)’ – and so on in a sort of ‘matter of fact’ way.

        Apparently he knows what he means by “often,” but to the reader the term is ambiguous, it has no definitive meaning. Given the context in which he uses the term the reader is led to believe that “ofen” means “very often,” or “most of the time,” “more times than not,” etc. But this is not clear.

        I am *quite sure* that shaming is, at times and to some extent, used inappropriately. I don’t need to have witnessed it, nor to have read Bradshaw’s book, to know that (although I have witnessed it), but only to understand human depravity. But I don’t know *how often* this is the case; I would make an educated guess that shaming is used inappropriately in direct proportion to the level of unregeneration in the society in question.

        The conclusion I draw from that condensed analysis is that inappropriate shaming is the result of man’s sinful nature, and that his sinful nature needs to be explained to him that he might see it, and thereby be given the first tool of personal reformation. I.e., recognition of his own depravity.

        This method winston would call “shaming,” and he might further say that my *real motivaton* is to take out my frustrations on a perceived weaker victim; that I am thereby merely contributing to the perpetuation of the vicious cycle. He would call it that, that is to say, when it were directed at homosexuality or sexual deviancy, female provocative dress and that sort of thing. Otherwise he would call it something else. Depending on the “thing,” he might even call it “good,” or “necessary,” or “righteous.” Or at least “probably” so.

    • I think Terry made a good point at 10:17 when he mentions what an economist would call a “marginal” homosexual. The psychological evidence supports the idea that homosexual behavior is not simply a binary, yes or no option. Some men will, as it were, begin to “consume” sodomy when the “cost” falls to a certain level. We are, of course, told that these marginal homosexuals are relatively unhappy so long as high cost (e.g. social stigma) keeps them out of the “market” for frequent and shameless sodomy. Yet even if we grant that this is entirely true, moving marginal homosexuals into the market for frequent and shameless sodomy exposes them to very serious health risks, and reduces their life expectancy by as much as twenty years. An advertisement promoting frequent and shameless sodomy is, therefore, so far as these marginal homosexuals are concerned, akin to an advertisement promoting smoking.

      I think there are two objections that parents of young children can make to these advertisements. First, they can raise questions in the child’s mind that cannot be honestly answered without delving into matters that are not, many believe, suited to a child’s mind. Second, they enforce the liberal sexual morality, which is based on consent, and undermine traditional sexual morality, which is based on the natural end of the sex act.

      Winston @ I don’t doubt that homosexuals have been “bashed”–if you go back far enough, they were occasionally executed by the state–but that “gay-bashing” was ever a “thing” is largely a myth. When this happened it was either done by (a) young louts of whom the community disapproved, or (b) young men outraged by homosexual propositions, or (c) another homosexual.

      • Prof. Smith:

        I think there are two objections that parents of young children can make to these advertisements. First, they can raise questions in the child’s mind that cannot be honestly answered without delving into matters that are not, many believe, suited to a child’s mind. Second, they enforce the liberal sexual morality, which is based on consent, and undermine traditional sexual morality, which is based on the natural end of the sex act

        I object to the entire homosexual agenda for those two reasons and one more which I stated above – namely that frequent exposure to homosexuality and homosexual advocacy sold as “what the cool people do” morally righteous, equally licit to normal sex between men and women and so forth, has the effect over time (and apparently a fairly short period of time depending on certain variables) of destroying, or at least of severely wounding, the natural intuition, across a broad swath of society, that deviant sexual behavior is severely disordered and should therefore be avoided, both in practice and in support or advocacy.

        It is not mere coincidence that the younger generations raised and educated in the ’90s and early ’00s are the most “gay friendly” generations to date. This has been the intention of the degenerate homo sex lobby all along, and it has been a big success in terms of what the goal was from the beginning.

  6. A successful career in senior management – in a world where ‘the market’ is rigged, all large bureaucracies are interlinked, and bad economic decisions are buffered by gigantic size or bailed-out – depends more on generic (anti-) virtue-signalling than on running a profitable corporation. Successful bureaucrats move between organisations frequently enough that they do not have time for their real, functional performance to be evaluated – so they cannot in practice be judged on their ability to deliver profits. Essentially, these senior management types are parasitic upon their serial employers – buffing their CV’s by high profile campaigns angled at other managers, positive publicity and ‘awards’, and moving-on before the damage they inflict on organisations can be attributed to them.

    • True enough. Then there is this: who needs bad PR? Better perhaps for a corporate manager to burn a pinch of incense at the altar of Caesar than to risk ostracism and persecution. But the Mercedes ad did more than that. It was no mere ritual nod to the Powers, no pro forma obeisance to the Lord of the Air. It was not even honest but otherwise empty virtue signaling. It was the enthusiastic proclamation of True Believers.

      • It was not even honest but otherwise empty virtue signaling. It was the enthusiastic proclamation of True Believers.

        Which is explanation enough for why the unformed (or malformed, as it were) feel the same way about Ford as you do about Mercedes. The former – in spite of its pro-homo policy, and endorsement by the pro-homo lobby – simply isn’t as yet empty, dishonest and pro-homo enough for that ilk.

      • Mercedes is German. Germany’s a bad, bad place at present; anyone who doesn’t actively engage in some outright perverse behaviour (such as sodomy or bodily mutilation) is low-status inside the cities.

        They may have easily misread American opinion in their own echo chamber.

  7. There’s another aspect of this phenomenon that deserves a remark. As the cases of the Target chain and Kellogg have recently shown, companies can actually pay a price for taking ultra-PC stances that alienate the Trump constituency. Most Hollywood movies, all of them being PC, lose money; the ones that lose the most money are the ones that are maximally PC. However, the box-office failure of the maximally PC films has not stopped Hollywood from producing those films. That fact tells us that ideology trumps profit in the (large) part of Left-Corporatist America that goes by the name of Hollywood – or what Agent Mulder in the funniest episode of The X-Files calls “the Military-Industrial-Entertainment Complex.” Letting ideology trump profit is, I would add, an economically suicidal proposition. But it comes as no surprise to us counter-culture types to know that the Left is suicidal.

    One further thought: All advertising is crass and addresses the crassness of its intended audience; ultra-PC advertising is ultra-crass and addresses the ultra-crassness of its intended audience — from which it follows that Mercedes Benz considers that particular audience to be its crassest audience by far.

    • I wonder how much of that is buffeted by “endowments for the arts” and such as that? Ann Barnhardt is quick to point out occasionally (in her “Turn that shit off!” posts at her site) that people glued to their t.v.’s and dependent on being entertained 24/7/365 thereby are unknowingly paying huge sums (collectively) to keep the otherwise highly offensive forms of t.v. and movie “entertainment” industries up, when they couldn’t possibly survive otherwise. I take it she makes a pretty damn good point.

      • Since Hollywood loses money, there must be a secretive subsidy that keeps Hollywood in business. Maybe it’s China, but Hollywood could disappear and China would dominate the world cinema market tomorrow. Chinese films are less PC and better, technically, than American films. Some Chinese films are more morally serious than American films and by that virtue, more free and independent. See, e.g., Zhang Yimou’s Flowers of War (2011), about the infamous Rape of Nanking. The morality of Yimou’s film is a syncretism of Catholicism and Buddhism. It is one of the most gripping films of my recent experience. Nothing like it is made in Hollywood today.

        By the way, many Soviet-era Russian films are more anti-Communist than patriotic American films of the same period. See, e.g. Sergei Gerasimov’s cinematic namesake adaption (1958) of Mikhail Sholokov’s novel Quiet Flows the Don. This film portrays the Communist campaign in the Ukraine in the 1920s from the point of view, sympathetically reported, of the Ukrainian Cossacks. The Bolsheviks are repulsive villains. The film was made in the late-1950s under Khrushchev, who was Ukrainian. Perhaps that explains it, but not entirely. There is no similar American film.

      • As Ann correctly surmises, the box office crashes are subsidized by the box office hits. As long as Disney can make money off Star Wars and the Marvel series (I think that is Disney?), they can afford flops. Think of it as the NBA subsidizing the WNBA.

        Another point re: the 4% (if it is even that high), if they are only 4% or less of the population, why do they seem to show up in 100% of the TV shows?

      • c matt:

        Ummm, because L is the alpha and Q the omega in Hollywood? Ha, ha.

        Yeah, the huge over representation in TV and movies ought to be a dead giveaway.

      • … why do they seem to show up in 100% of the TV shows?

        It’s distributed grooming of the children (and other impressionable persons).

    • “Letting ideology trump profit is, I would add, an economically suicidal proposition.”

      Indeed. Therefore it should not much surprise you that the majority of money enjoyed by most large Hollywood production firms is not from their movies.

  8. There seems to be some kind of systemic failure of authority, supervisory oversight, and communication/co-ordination at a lot of big firms. It is as though whoever’s responsible for this ad and others like it (there are legion) doesn’t even care if it will sell the product or not, but rather with impressing either their peers and/or some ideology and its professionalized SJW enforcers. Are there any corporate-types here who can shed some light?

  9. If it seems to be the confession of true believers, that’s because it is exactly that- modern executives are renowned for their herd mentality and enthusiasms that are the clear legatee of certain aberrations of Protestant religion in North America.

    • Years ago – 25 years ago now, I suppose – I personally had a sort of “fixation” about owning a Mercedes (even a “used Mercedes” – Zippy, back off! Lol). Specifically a 500 SL.

      I had pictures of the car cut out and posted all over the house!, and I was especially prone to visit a Mercedes dealership and sit in and gawk at the model. It is a damn wonder my wonderful wife didn’t divorce me over it!

      In any case, if and when Mercedes adds LBTQ, etc. effectively to its new line, I’m completely out. I would have been completely out 25 years ago as well.

  10. Well consider that doing unseemly things with the human sewers is the same or equal to touching raw faeces than its unquestionably going to be utterly repulsive to healthy men.

  11. The Homo Agenda isn’t about destroying masculinity but ‘redefining’ it. Mercedes isn’t only selling a car; it’s selling the idea that ‘Queer is Cool’ and the cool guys drive a Mercedes.

    • I remember the last time “Queer was cool”: when the Village People were headliners in the disco era. The AIDS virus kind of rained death on that Pride Parade, but it was inevitable that the coolness of anal sex would return. Anal sex represents emancipation from the discriminatory prison of unchosen sexual nature, and is thus an obvious sacrament of liberty conferring the grace of “cool”.

      • In other words, liberty induced “coolness” = horrible disease and death. Not a bad way of putting it.

  12. Just like with entropy, you have to consider the whole system. Hollywood loses money on bad movies but the family is squashed like a beetle which helps big state. Hollywood is a loss leader.

    • No, Sue. Hollywood is a Lead-Loser, not a Loss-Leader. The unsustainable is unsustainable. The LOSERS are dancing their dance-of-death before us.

      • I question this idea that the left is suicidal. I think a more likely outcome is that it will make a moderating course correction at the point its PC culture becomes unsustainable.

      • I agree with winstonscrooge, though I would describe the dynamic differently. Left liberals overreach, and right liberals clean up the vomit and excrement while leaving liberalism itself unquestioned.

        Liberalism won’t reach a final point of self destruction until “conservatives” stop conserving it.

      • The Overton Window will continue in perpetuity to move ever leftward, and “conservatives” along with it. This is why *I* believe liberalism will eventually self-destruct. I don’t think liberalism has a self-preservationist mechanism by which this can be avoided. But I could certainly be wrong.

      • I think the opposite is true Terry. I see liberalism to be the ultimate survivor in terms of political systems. It certainly out competed the older non-liberal forms and it is highly adaptable. Obviously the anti-liberals see this adaptability to be distasteful (hence the accusations of nominalism, unprincipled exception and incoherence etc.). For better or worse this is the strength of liberalism and why I do not suspect it to be going anywhere any time soon.

      • It isn’t liberalism’s resilience per se that is objectionable.

        What is objectionable is the lies, perversity, corruption, soul destroying functional hatred of the Good/True/Beautiful, mass murder, tyranny, and the like. This also does include the specific means by which liberalism perpetuates itself (nominalism, weaponized principle of explosion, motte and bailey, etc), which is why right-liberalism is ultimately every bit as contemptible as left liberalism — even though some right liberals retain some degree of squeamishness (a.k.a. sanity) about sodomy and the present exaltation of active in-your-face hateful-of-the-normal sexual perverts.

      • Liberalism (as I have explained many times from numerous points
        of view) attempts to make freedom the justification for (at least some) political acts, that is, real acts of authority. But all political acts discriminate and restrict freedom, by their very nature qua political acts.

        Liberalism is therefore rationally incoherent at its very foundations, and the implications of this have already been explored and explained extensively. Liberalism in short is a lie which attempts to serve the function of justification-of-authority: a false pretense of authority. Liberalism is intrinsically – always and without exception by the nature of the case, even when it accidentally produces a good outcome – tyrannical, a not merely or circumstantially false but a necessarily false pretense of authority.

      • winstonscrooge:

        …liberalism espouses limited governmental authority …

        That is the slogan, yes, or one of the slogans. What it means in reality is that liberalism sets itself up as a kind of comprehensive meta-authority which defines and imposes those “limits” on everyone, good and hard, under the pretense that limiting everything but liberalism is “limited government “.

      • Then how does one explain how there can exist two countries where one is clearly more free than the other? If the US is more free than North Korea which it clearly is then it is possible to design a system of government prioritizing freedom.

      • winstonscrooge:

        Your reductio ad North Korea has been dealt with extensively and repeatedly in multiple venues. You’ve never demonstrated an adequate understanding, let alone mounted an actual argument against, the repeatedly demonstrated incoherence of liberalism. Any pretense to symmetry here is just that: mere pretense.

        Your rhetoric in general is inconsistent and question begging. Exhibit A is your pose in this very thread of being categorically against shaming and at the same time admitting you are sometimes in favor of it.

      • winstonscrooge:

        Then how does one explain how there can exist two countries where one is clearly more free than the other?

        God’s principle of individuality. No two snowflakes are exactly alike and all that.

        If the US is more free than North Korea which it clearly is then it is possible to design a system of government prioritizing freedom.

        Only to the extent that the governed are governed internally by the law of God.

      • Terry Morris:

        The rhetorical method is obvious to
        anyone not stuck to the tar baby:

        1) Observe that two actual countries are different.

        2) Observe that some of the features of one country are preferable to some of the features of the other.

        3) Label those preferable features – and only the preferable ones – “freedom”.

        4) Completely ignore the substantive reality of what liberalism actually is. Discount the fact that both countries profess liberalism. Etc, etc.

        5) Completely ignore the substantive criticism of liberalism itself. Avoid at all costs actually addressing the argument.

        6) Fog up the discussion with maximum virtue signaling and ad hominem.

      • Zippy:

        2) Observe that some of the features of one country are preferable to some of the features of the other.

        3) Label those preferable features – and only the preferable ones – “freedom”.

        Or, in the inverse – label certain features “freedom” and deem them therefore “preferable” (to “most reasonable and moral people” href=”https://winstonscrooge.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/the-legitimate-liberal-process/#comment-2741″>according to him).

      • Oops! Looks like I left the closing tag off in that link. Here it is again:

        Or, in the inverse – label certain features “freedom” and deem them therefore “preferable” (to “most reasonable and moral people” href=”https://winstonscrooge.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/the-legitimate-liberal-process/#comment-2741″>according to him).

      • As to #4 North Korea does not have the rule of law therefore it is irrelevant what they profess themselves to be. Per the definition of liberalism they cannot be liberal because they do not prioritize the freedom and equal rights of their citizens.

  13. Where did this idea that Hollywood loses money come from?

    AFAIK movies and TV shows work a lot like venture capital; that is, as a portfolio. Many individual projects lose money, some break even, and a few earn stratospheric profits. Overall the big hits make the enterprise profitable for investors (a.k.a. producers).

    Sure, lots of one-offs are stinkers, and too many stinkers without offsetting home runs sink individual careers or VC’s / production companies. But that is true of startup-style or project-oriented financial ecosystem in general.

    I don’t know Hollywood the way I know silicon valley (though one of my own investors was also an investor in movie productions, back in the day); but is there something more to this idea of Hollywood as a financial loser than a naive observation that a lot of individual productions stink and lose money?

  14. If I may intrude a tangential question here:

    Can someone tell me what is the official, formal Roman Catholic doctrine as regards homosexual activity as a “sin that cries to heaven for vengeance”?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins_that_cry_to_heaven

    I suppose that many American RCs haven’t heard this, and of those who have, I suppose a majority do not regard themselves as obliged to conform their belief and speech accordingly. But are those who thus distance themselves from this teaching in conflict with their church or not? It appears that they may be communicants in good standing.

    I’m curious about the facts of it all.

      • That article is pretty decent. An article is just an article though. Someone asking for “the official, formal Roman Catholic doctrine as regards homosexual activity” is probably asking for actual official Magisterial documents (e.g. the Catechism and CDF quotes I provided below).

        Here is another example, from the authoritative documents of an Ecumenical Council:

        “Anyone caught in the practice of the sin against nature [sodomy], on account of which the wrath of God was unleashed upon the children of disobedience (Eph. 5:6), if he is a cleric, let him be demoted from his state and kept in reclusion in a monastery to do penance; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated and kept rigorously distant from the communion of the faithful.” — Third Lateran Council

    • I have no idea what the official position is on the four specified sins, but they do not seem to constitute a particularly egregious class of sins on the face of it. I’d suppose that all sins are known in Heaven, and that justice demands that all sins be avenged. We do not have “whispering sins” or “silent sins” or “sins that fall to the attention of a lesser authority.” I’m inclined to see this as a figure of speech that happens to have been used four times, and not four sins that constitute a particular class.

    • Wurmbrand:

      Can someone tell me what is the official, formal Roman Catholic doctrine as regards homosexual activity …

      Here is the Catechism, published in its current edition under John Paul II in 2000:

      Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

      Examples can be multiplied, for example:

      Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

      Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)

  15. The hard reality (all pun intended) is that the faggots at the “top” are “leading” the white masses towards a manner of collective submission. And the very first sign of this collective submission is holding faggots in high regard SIMPLY BECAUSE they are faggots.

    This is where “we” are at.

    Fags are “cool” JUST BECAUSE they’re faggots.

    The social ramifications on white male children could not be more obvious.

    “We” operate in what amounts to one giant grooming conglomerate of sexual deviants possesssing an incredible amount of support “by the people.”

  16. Pingback: Reductio Ad North Korea | Winston Scrooge

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s