Why do leftists say everything is 1984-tier...

Why do leftists say everything is 1984-tier, when they refuse to look at the fact that the whole contemporary view of genders is essentially the same thing as "2 + 2 = 5"?

Other urls found in this thread:

s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Richard_Dawkins_The_Selfish_Gene.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

College is a hell of a drug

I didn't mean to take the redpill.
I want to go back into the matrix.

Projection

So Biological sex is actually determined by a single gene, the SRY gene on the, Y chromosome.

Gender is largely determined by an individual's actions, behaviors and the way they view themselves. What's so hard to understand?

Because media spin only keeps things from the past month or so relevant.

History doesn't matter to (((progressives))). Tradition doesn't matter to (((progressives))).

>individual's actions, behaviors and the way they view themselves
Which are mostly determined by the y or x chromosome

sex and gender are now understood to be different things. It's called scientific progress.

its not hard to understand
a new definition for gender was created in order to fit the political correctness narrative surrounding faggots who want to cut their dick off

doesn't mean that the definition is right tho

>ID: ITIs2boY

It is boy.

Fucking lol'd so hard.

Yeah so most people have a gender and biological sex that are matched but its not always the case.

Its ridiculous to think of something as obviously cultural (wearing a dress in the west) as being biological when it is clearly a gender construct.

Tradition is culture. Chromosomes and genes cannot create culture. Understanding that doesn't make someone respect tradition less.

Also, respecting tradition shouldn't mean we ignore scientific facts.

>Why do leftists say everything is 1984-tier

That is what people say about the left, they are always screaming about fascism and muh nazis

wow I just noticed that. That's fucking insane.

I guess the internets are with me on this one.

The dress itself is arbitrary, but given the custom of dress=woman, then the xx chromosome type will predict very well for dress-wearing behavior.

As for non-aligned sex and gender, what is the evidence that trans people have brain structures corresponding to the opposite sex?

You need to read Propaganda by Jaques Ellul. Then perhaps you'll realize that these (((sciences))) you are referring to were invented by the left in order to use "scientific research" to back up their already fabricated lies.

Might be above your reading level though.

>Chromosomes and genes cannot create culture.
Where exactly do you think culture came from? Did it spring from the fucking aether?

*chuckles* actually, the beauty of science is that it's ever changing. We get new information and we adapt to it.

I view myself as Jesus Christ, what does that make me?

I hate myself for reading it in his voice

How does it compare to the original, written by Sigmund Freuds nephew?

It is 2 boy...

Stop fucking up the language. Gender is the same as biological sex.

STOP CONTORTING THE FUCKING LANGUAGE

>We get new information and we adapt to it.
Oh yeah, except that you guys believe the "science is settled" on man-made climate change. Really jogs that noggin.

Iktfb

Is there anyway to un-redpill one's self?

ROFL, Sigmund Freud was a fucking leftist. That book is more biased than a WaPo journalist. LOL

Its just made up pseudointellectual crap.

I get where you're going with the brain structure stuff but I don't think it's really relevant.

When somebody wants to go against a cultural norm with such arbitrary things as how we should dress, interact, what sort of jobs we have etc. and it doesn't correspond with the traditional gender role I have a hard time forming an argument that says they should do it the same way everyone always has "just because" . Many of the gender roles are either completely arbitrary or are such extreme exaggerations of biology that they lack any true correlation to biologically determined sex. It also is incredibly difficult to disentangle what quantity is nature vs. nurture so if some one wants to live outside the norm and (big and) they aren't causing anyone else harm, we should let them do it and encourage such bravery and diversity.

Professing non-sensical beliefs is a crucial component of a post-totalitarian society.

Seriously, read Vaclav Havel's "Power of the Powerless" and you'll understand what the left is doing. It's 70's Eastern Bloc dissident literature, so it's pretty short since it had to be copied by hand for secret distribution. I don't know of any other work which will do more to help you understand the insanity that has infected our society.

So are you saying you don't believe sex is determined genetically by a single gene on the Y chromosome or you don't believe in science in general?
Are you daft or just trolling?

oh I see, just trolling....

Just move on... you will find new joy elsewhere.

Medical science is not even what I was referring to. Psychology and Sociology are what are studied and constantly referred to when leftists want to push an agenda. Actual, irrefutable facts never enter the picture. It's always feelings, emotions, general consensus, etc.

I should have known you were completely clueless.

That statement ignores much of the nuance involved. Genes code for prototypes within organisms where as culture is learned behavior. It is not hereditary. Because we as organisms are indebted to genes for our existence you could argue that our culture is also dependent on genes, but I would argue that is unnecessarily reductionist.

Do buttstuff goy

Amen brother!

I read it in pidgin.
HEYO HOL UP! U CRACKA ASS, LE ME SET U STRAT. THAT SCINCE AND SHIT BE LIKE CHANGIN AND SHIT, AL DA TIM DAWG.

It's the need to compare things to the absolute worst thing possible in order to convince people you are correct. It's something both sides do, but the left tends to use more comparisons with fiction which seems pretty silly.

> Groups I dislike are KKK or Nazi
> Individuals I dislike are Voldemort / The Emporer
> Ideas I dislike are 1984 / F451
> Laws I dont like result in banning everything for everyone

It's like the only way to argue anything now is to compare it to the worst things imaginable.

Well those are moral arguments which depend on your specific cultural telos. No point in us really arguing about that.

Where gender expression is concerned from a more empirical standpoint though you could argue that such behavior is aberrant and a sign of malfunctioning, especially if it hinders reproductive or social success in most cutures. Now there is a degree of variation between cultures, but it is basically true that the masculine and feminine archetypes are usually the most successful individuals in most societies.

Wearing a dress is really not all that relevant, if you are a very assertive and dominant man you can wear a dress, you can even make it a trend. However the men wearing dresses in our society are almost all not of this type but of a very distinct submissive type with a shitload of problems social and mental.

Well if your actions, behaviors and view of yourself fit you might as well be. Go ahead turn some water to wine.

I wouldn't really care either way, as long as you aren't harming anyone because of your belief. It's christian conservatives that tend to get their panties in a bundle over such things and I just don't subscribe to such nonsense.

Culture is not entirely learned, it is a combination of genetic input and also the learned behavior that has accrued in earlier generations. The culture of each generation is therefore mediated by genetics in very complex ways, and to ignore their role, or assign any explanations using genetics to the 'reductionist' box is not logical.

Ultimately every single cultural element has its roots in genetics because there is simply no other possible cause for it. But I'm not going to argue that it isn't its own 'emergent' type of system, because it seems clear that it is to some degree. I just don't think its wholly disconnected from genetics.

it wouldn't be a Gender thread without this Pseudoscience piece of fillth !

So now you're trying to make this a semantics argument? Most English dictionaries and print media accept the definitions of gender and biology that I am using. Language is defined by its use.

If enough people get uptight and bent out of shape we could come up with a new term for gender just to be PC. One which lacks historic connotation. It could be something like "cultural sexual identity" (a cumbersome term). The fact is gender, as it currently is defined, exists. Nixing a word for it won't cease it's existence except in the most Orwellian of ways.

The are taught from a young age to see whites, males, straights, Christians and Traditional Values as "The Big Mean Bully Who Ruins Everything!" Their actions don't make sense until you understand what they are trying to destroy.

Leftards say everything is just fine except for people like us

We're the ones pointing out leftard terminology is practically the same than newspeak and that internet surveillance is just like big brother

I really do respect your argument. I would disagree in general that being aberrant from a cultural norm makes an individual less successful in society. I think there are numerous counter examples that prove this rule.

Your argument also allows a sort of slippery slope. If you were ever to enact policy to encourage normality or discourage aberration the definition would not be so easy to come by "empirically" as you might think. Also, behavior almost always exists in a normal curve so you could keep trimming out the outliers until only the average remained, like some sort of dystopian nanny-state.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there and again the nuance is the same. Culture is always learned. Example: The way some one dances a traditional dance is always learned. Some one who inherits scoliosis will have difficulty expressing that culture exactly but it is not the culture that has changed.

I actually think this is a worthless and inaccurate (and somewhat patronizing metaphor).

It's not scientific at all: its pure psuedo.

there's two points

1. saying gender roles are societal (non chromosomal) is saying if you took a bunch of male babies and female babies and raised them in a cage where all their needs are met but have no outside stimuli, that they will basically behave the same as they grow up, aside from their genitalia. this isn't the case though, the two sexes will behave very differently, based on their brain structures. sex is gender. nature is nuture. yes i agree that people's attire isn't genetically coded, but the idea that gender is just fashion sense is dumb and kind of an arbitrary hill that the left seems to fight on that no one really cares about

2. even if gender roles WERE mostly social, rather than genetic/chromsomal, there's still a case to be made to rigidly enforce gender roles based on sex for survival and thriving. human beings have been doing this for millenia, because it's hardcoded in our DNA to do this

an ancillary point - there is no such thing as transgenderism at the genetic or biological level. it's just a very elaborate form of homosexuality, which MAY have SOME biological basis (unclear, more research needed)

I would never advocate policy be made by Darwinist logic, so we're in agreement there.

My basic definition of 'normality' is that the society be able to reproduce itself, protect against alien societiies, and create some form of material culture, including technology and plastic arts. That's not exactly scientific but you should be able to see why that definition makes sense, such a society is abit like a healthy organism, one which is likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future.

I don,t think you can actually create such a society by policy however. I have a much more deterministic view of history.

>fetus having definable gender

I thought the left only views fetuses as clumps of cells and not people?

No need for ad hominem attacks: I may have been clueless but you were less than succinct.

My own background is in biology. Most of the evidence in modern biology has lead me to believe that nature (SRY genes) is a much smaller part of gender identity than nurture (culture). I think we risk limiting capable individuals by limiting what we encourage them to do base on one gene or any gene for that matter.

And yet maybe dancing is inherently based on the rhythm of the hearbeat(this is an actual theory I think). Or maybe it is based on the need for human bonding in special rituals. Do you see how it's two-sided?

Cognitive dissonance as a product of unexamined views.

Gender is an ensemble of social behaviors based on sexual dimorphism

Behavior is fluid. Gender is not.

A race war is the only thing that would bring me joy now.

Because everything is 1984 tier retard. I'm not even a leftist and I know this.

Facebook, google, Snapchat, and many others are collecting your facial recognition data and selling it.

Amazon is opening a grocery store with no employees. Walmart tracks you throughout the store with facial recognition cameras.

Our government is controlled by and elite few with loads of money. 80 people control 50% of the worlds assets. 12 families rule the world, and every news agency is owned by the same people, they pump out fake news every day.

The elite globalists control both sides of politics. Look at the 2004 election for example, you vote Bush or Kerry, both skull and bones members funded by the same lobbyists.

...

...

No I still think that you are ignoring a lot of really interesting nuance especially in terms of biological science.

Many organisms including human's have phenotypes that extend into their environment and are external from themselves. Spiders don't teach web making thus it is entirely genetic. Some things do indeed have components from both culture and genetics but mixing these two ingredients doesn't mean genes cause culture, it means they can influence each other.

An automobile is an entirely a cultural artifact. All parts of it's creation must be learned.

Gender, is largely defined as the artifacts and behaviors related to sex which are not determined genetically. Thus all that remains is the cultural. Wheather or not one "likes" or disagrees with these definitions is meaningless. The phenomena exists so we might as well have terminology to describe it. Fighting against common vernacular doesn't only threaten freedom of speech, it boarders on thought policing.

Gender by definition is largely defined by behavior . Where does the logic of your statement break down?

if you took a bunch of male babies and female babies and raised them in a cage where all their physical needs are met but they have no social stimuli, they'd grow into a bunch of malcontents who don't know their place in the world and spend all day complaining

basically Sup Forums

I'm stuck right between being a millennial and a GenXFag, and for some reason I was never assigned 1984 to read back in school. I recently read it just so I would know what the names were referencing. It really is one of the most well-written bitchslaps of authoritarian groupthink in history. Not only is it an exciting and fascinating read, but it really redpills one on human nature in society.

What's really amazing is as you read O'Brien's explanation of why things are the way they are, you realize that O'Brien is just as much a slave as Winston, except he's more aware. In Oceania, 2+2 DOES equal 5, because they will not allow you to exist thinking it's 4. It's diabolically terrifying and brilliant.

And whilst ignoring the fact we've been spied on by the government long before Trump

>flag
>id

>if you took a bunch of male babies and female babies
>basically Sup Forums
>female
>Sup Forums

haha funny joke a-user

I'd argue that the average individual understands gender to be mostly the same thing as sex, as in 'women just act like that' and it is in fact only in academia that this more subtle definition holds ground.

I still don't agree though. The car is made by a series of human actions, each of these human actions has to be caused in some way by the genetics of the person, it is only the specifics of applying these normal human behaviors to the particular environment of auto industry.

What culture mostly does is change the environment, but the human reaction to the environment(and its effects on it) has to come from genetics. No culture can change how our brain is structured, and therefore all culture is dependent on this original genetic template of possibility.

Now if we create AI that thinks and acts without us, that will be different, and calling it our culture would seem to me a bit odd. But human culture as defined by what we ourselves actually do and experience has to be genetically rooted.

>It really is one of the most well-written bitchslaps of authoritarian groupthink in history

george orwell died soon after writing that book

i wonder what could be responsible for his (((untimely))) death

>i slam you
pls leaf-san yamete

B-but Bush Jr was a b-better president than T-trump!!

For most lefties 1984 is like Harry Potter. A quick pop cultural reference they can throw out wheneveer it is convenient.

The difference is: Most of them haven't even read the book and it's painfully obvious when they only quote it in the context of surveillance, which is probably the tiniest part of the Oceanian Regime.

They completely ignore the aspect of newspeak, which is the main focus of the book and even has its own chapter.

Pretty ironic considering what a lot of them advocate.

Same reason leftists think they're counter-cultural even though they share all the same opinions as every studio executive and corporate HR lady.

Are you a tranny?

Were you raped as a child?

"That book" was one of the favorite works of Joseph Goebbels you illiterate american pleb.

>Why do leftists say everything is 1984-tier
Because their English teachers had them read 1984 and glorified the idea of resisting a totalitarian regime. And these people want to be the heroes in their storybooks (see the constant Harry Potter references the Left has become infamous for). That's it. There is no deeper meaning or actual conviction behind it. People in a state of perpetual adolescence playing make believe as the heroes of their favorite childhood books. Nothing more.

They just weren't raised properly and never grew up.

>nu-Gender by nu-definition is largely nu-defined by behavior
eff
tee
eff
wai

"I'd argue that the average individual understands gender to be mostly the same thing as sex, as in 'women just act like that' and it is in fact only in academia that this more subtle definition holds ground."

I don't disagree one bit with this.

I really do see where your coming from in saying that, since the organisms that created culture are gene based culture is gene based. I think this limits thinking more long animal behavior and biology more than it does within a sociological construct. Attempting to parse out phenotype from cultural artifacts has been a major goal of work in animal behavior and evolutionary ecology over the last century. Distinguishing culture from heredity has been axiomatic in this work. I actually find that people with backgrounds in social sciences tend to have looser definitions for these terms than biologists.

Some of Richard Dawkins biological literature: Selfish Gene, Extended Phenotype cover this nuance remarkably. In fact it was Dawkins who coined the word "meme" to describe discrete units that comprise culture, analogous to the discrete genes that comprise phenotype.

Nature vs. Nurture arguments (almost a cliche in popular media now) are a direct descendant of this sort of thinking. There is open agreement that for any trait, for any organism, nature and nurture have some component contribution for which the sum is the total.

>sex isn’t gender

Genes determine sex. Sex determines reproductive organs. Reproductive system determines sex hormones. Sex hormones influence appearance and behavior. Common male appearance and behavior = boy and likewise for girls.

Sort of irrelevant, I'm a cis-straight-male. I'm secure enough with my own identity that people expressing themselves doesn't make me uncomfortable.

I was not rape as a child. Your second question is pretty insensitive. I hope you don't interact with people in this manner when offline. You won't make worthwhile friends that way.

If gender and sex are so distinguished and separate and one does not inform the other, why is the ultimate end of transgendered people sex reassignment surgery?

Language changes. Look at words like: idiot, spastic, gay. If you don't try to catch up you'll just be that ignorant old man calling his nephew with down syndrome a "retard". Language changes because society changes, It's much more rewarding to stay on the cutting edge of scientific and societal advancement than to maintain archaic fantasies.

>Selfish Gene, Extended Phenotype
I've read these but they don't touch specifically on human nature and nurture. Dawkins says something like 'I have an opinion on the subject but I am not going to give it' in the Selfish Gene. (Also the EP seemed to me more about the units of replication and the individual organism than about nature and nurture.)

The meme idea is great, I wrote my memoir on The Meme Machine by Blackmore, which i thought went a bit too far in the end. Memes are a good way to look at the cultural aspect, but they don't necessarily describe the interaction between culture and genes except in a sort of vague way.

What I notice though is that it is extremely unfashionable to assign genetic causes to our behavior. I find this suspicious, when at least some behavior, like mating strategies, should be highly mediated by genes regardless of culture, because anybody going against genetic interest here would be so quickly eliminated from the gene pool.

Describing exactly what culture is is almost more philosophy, similar to defining what life is, but arguing that our behaviors are caused by our genes doesn't even need to enter into the discussion, it can simply find genes that impact various behaviors and leave it at that. The more of these we find the more culture is found to have genetic roots.

That's a really good question. Correlation doesn't prove causation. While it's true that most people a functional SRY gene view themselves as male this is not always true. As far as I know, science has not managed to explain gender dysphoria. I'd rather take people at their word that they feel more comfortable living as a different gender than their biological sex. I'm not concieted enough to believe that I know more about another person's experience than they do.

Also, trans people arn't always after gender reassignment. I know a trans man (biological women) who doesn't want to do surgery or hormones. He already has pretty small breasts so she wears baggy shirts and cuts her hair short. He presents herself to people as a male and he's quite passable. Largely, he feels more comfortable day to day going to his job as a man, interacting with friends as a man. He never gets upset when people use the wrong pronouns cause it happens all the time. I admit, it causes some confusion but it is his life not mine.

Nineteen Eighty Four is literally about the left running society.

>I know a trans man
I wonder who that could be... user.

I hope you get raped by a pack of niggers.

Orwell was a sort of snowflake who refused to be really Left or Right wing. He called himself a socialist occasionally but he thought that FDRs new deal, the Nazis and the Soviets were basically the same thing. He talks about this in his On Nationalism.

He actually tracks the opinions of Albert J Nock to some degree, who was a Georgist conservative who spent a lot of time railing against modern education, and by our present standards is simply a reactionary.

Sounds like at best you skimmed Selfish Gene, Dawkins is never, in this book or any other, cagey with his opinions.

Biology as a science has not been overly cautious or restrictive in discussing genetic determinism. If anything, this path of inquiry has lead to further evidence that determining complex behavioral traits, such as intelligence, is impossible based on genetics alone. Add culture to the mix and it gets far to convoluted to be predictive.

One definition is based on science, the other is not.

Can you guess which is which?

>Gender is largely determined by an individual's actions, behaviors and the way they view themselves
Which can only be either masculine or feminine and doesn't change or supersede biological sex.

I've read the Selfish gene literally about 10 times. Here's the quote:
s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Richard_Dawkins_The_Selfish_Gene.pdf
It's Pg 3 of the Chapter Why are People, second paragraph

>Biology as a science has not been overly cautious or restrictive in discussing genetic determinism
There is an entire lobby of people who think research of this nature is racist and should be outlawed.

Dawkins himself has pointed out that people use the term 'reductionist' almost synonymously with 'biological"

Ok, I believe you. To get off subject a bit, in what way was Dawkins "like 'I have an opinion on the subject but I am not going to give it'"

The whole book is him trying to push an unpopular paradigm shift from the biological science is popular literature.

yeah both those people are not usually biologists.

That sounds like a Dawkins quote, do you have the context?

>ironic

Bruh, these same lefties defend pic related

Like what did you expect?

He thought he would have an easier time forwarding his argument if he explicitly didn't talk about humans, because then the notions of intentionality become genuinely confusing. Whereas talking about the genes of a slime mold 'wanting' something is less likely to conflate two concepts(evolutionary fitness and the subjective experience of intention). He states this in the book as well.

He also mentions that his theory was not that unpopular when it first came out but later grew to be considered radical- probably because of the implications. Among biologists is was very much the style of thought around that period, if he was the first to reallly organize it properly. But 10 years later it was creating ever more backlash, often not from biologists, but from people in the humanities.

Dawkins' meme idea is also not an actual explanation of nature nurture, it is just a theory about cultural evolution which would explain some patterns that would map onto a genuine theory.

oh, I just read the section you were talking about. I misunderstood, you were saying that he was avoiding giving an opinion on the nature vs. nurture debate in selfish gene. I would agree that is an accurate assessment.

Characteristically, he talks quite a bit on the subject even while saying he doesn't want to get into the debate.

Yeah spot on. no disagreement here.