March 31st is the day that has been designated Transgender Day of Visibility and president Biden made an annual proclamation to that effect. The date is an international recognition that has been around since 2009. The White House routinely issues proclamations such as this to recognize various things, and this one was one of 11 that were issued on March 29th.
But this year, March 31st is also Easter Sunday and so bigots have shrilly proclaimed that the date of the visibility day was deliberately chosen by the White House so as to be an insult to Christianity.
The Democrat issued the proclamation Friday, calling on “all Americans to join us in lifting up the lives and voices of transgender people throughout our nation and to work toward eliminating violence and discrimination based on gender identity”.
But Republicans objected to the fact that the Transgender Day of Visibility’s designated 31 March date in 2024 overlapped with Easter, among the holiest celebrations for Christians. Trump’s campaign accused Biden, a Roman Catholic, of being insensitive to religion. And the former president’s Republican allies piled on.
“We call on Joe Biden’s … White House to issue an apology to the millions of Catholics and Christians across America who believe tomorrow is for one celebration only – the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” said the Trump campaign’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said on social media that the “Biden White House has betrayed the central tenet of Easter” and called the president’s declaration “outrageous and abhorrent”.
To my mind, absurd reactions like this will only serve to alienate from Republicans (and Christianity) anyone who sees religion as a unifying and inclusive force, not as one that seeks to ostracize and demonize marginalized groups. But maybe I am too much of an optimist. Could it be that most Christians agree that, in the words of speaker Johnson, the proclamation has ‘betrayed the central tenet of Easter’. It is telling that he does not specify what the ‘central tenet of Easter’ is, because I simply do not know what he could possibly be referring to. I suspect that if he tried to be more specific, it would show more clearly how ridiculous his claim is. Such people thrive on issuing vague charges that seem ominous to those not willing or able to subject the claims to any scrutiny.
The central tenant of Easter is that sincere sacrifices by billions of people mean nothing, but one dude having an out-of-body experience for 36 hours undoes the crimes of all newborn babies etc.
Note that Catholics are considered separate from Christians. That bodes well.
Also, one celebration only? I guess Christopher Walken and Al Gore aren’t allowed to celebrate their birthdays?
Maybe the “central tenet of Easter” is hierarchy, with God > Jesus > white, male, (right kind of) Christians > other Cristians > etc. etc. > homosexuals > transexuals >…
This is a great system for people near the top of their hierarchy because they are automatically better than anyone below them. Naturally they wouldn’t want the hierarchy upset.
I posted this on another thread abour Easter:
Actually, it makes perfect sense for Transgender Visibility Day to coincide with Easter. You see, when Jesus rose from the dead, all the LGBT+ people in Judea came out and had a huge parade to distract Roman soldiers and officials so they wouldn’t notice Jesus was still alive and hunt him down again. True story!
Mike Johnson is a member of the Republican Party of Hate, so his central Easter and general Christian tenet might be found in Lk. 14:26.
I always enjoy Easter and refuse to consider it a Christian holiday. I especially enjoy that it’s celebrated with symbols that long predate Christianity.
The egg hunt and ritual ham feast were both successfully celebrated.
Our family has long enjoyed the Easter holiday traditions. The first thing we do on Easter Sunday is to open our bibles and read all the interesting stories it has about the Easter Bunny and how it died for our sins and rewarded us all by giving us easter eggs to enjoy. Fucking assclowns.
Idealist, maybe. Certainly not realistic.
Evidently, people have the capacity to both see religion as a unifying and inclusive force and have absurd reactions like this.
I mean, yes, there is clearly a subset that will react thus; thing is, this has been going on for long enough that anyone who could possibly be alienated from Republicans (and Christianity) by the culture wars will have done so by now. So this will not move the needle. And of course the coming generation has lived during the wartime, and it has informed their inculturation already.
—
I note I was entirely unaware that this was the “Transgender Day of Visibility” until I saw this post, and I reckon something like 90% of people will likewise be unaware either way.
Every day is some day for something; loses potency that way.
Same as with Catholicism: every single day has at least one saint associated with it.
I’m a little surprised how happy I am when responding to “Happy Easter” with “Happy Transgender Day of Visibility”.
The idea that Catholics, a religion headed by blokes in fancy dresses, are having a collective freakout about trans people is deeply amusing to me.
badland, um, those are traditional vestments . Weight of history and all that.
Their liturgical garb was never seen as women’s clothing, other than by such as you, in modern times.
[call a kilt-wearing Scot womanish, why not?]
Ah, John. Regular as clockwork, you.
Not wrong, either, badland.
I’m certain you can point to where I called them womanish, John.
Heh. You’re doing the dance, badland.
See, you wrote about “blokes in fancy dresses [who] are having a collective freakout about trans people”, as if they were transvestites and by transference equivalent to trans people transgendering and thus hypocritically a tu quoque.
(That’s the intended humour, no?)
So that’s a no is it John?
(Your inference of my intended humour is wrong.)
But… men wearing dresses!
Haw haw, they’re railing against the Transgender Day of Visibility!
That was your very point.
(Kilts are skirts, no?)
🙂
No, John. Again, you are wrong about me. Thankfully this is a text-based medium and you have nowhere to hide.
At no point did I haw-haw and at no point did I call the Catholic hierarchy womanish, you are still welcome to quote me doing so but -- alas! -- you can’t. If you could you would.
I appreciate your passion about kilts.
A question: I grew up going to churchy schools. When I learned enough, it was blindingly obvious that Christianity had simply hijacked pre-existing festivals from forerunner belief systems, festivals that happened at astronomically (and hence agriculturally) significant milestones. Every year there’d be a big deal about Christmas (winter solstice, more or less), Easter (spring equinox, more or less), and harvest festival (autumn equinox, more or less). I’ve always been vaguely baffled that Christianity doesn’t really do or say anything about the summer solstice, didn’t bother hijacking that one. Anyone any idea why not? (Happy solstice-more-or-less everyone).
badland:
So, what is it about the men wearing fancy dresses that deeply amuses you so in regard when they rail against the Transgender Day of Visibility?
I mean, fine, not the transvestism and thus the travesty. So, something else, something very subtle. Right?
—
sonofrojblake, sure, I have an idea. Shame you can’t read it, eh? 😉 No point wasting it, then.
Ah, but had you actually learned enough? History is actually a bit more complicated than that.
John, it’s very simple. You can re-read what I wrote. With clear eyes I think you may see I’m not the kink-hating vestment-shamer you’ve created and are railing against. I still have not co-opted the Scots or called them “womanish.”
I do however see your passion for kilts extends to your passion for paying due regard to liturgical vestments. Graz! You have fought valiantly against my gentle suggestion that Catholic vetsments could be considered, from an atheist’s point of view, a type of dress.
You know, a dress being something functionally indistinguishable from a vestment to secular eyes.
But you contributed!
John@8- The Episcopalians also seem to honor every saint or day of whatever. There’s something new and exciting in the science news every day. When you haven’t had anything of substance happen in 2000 years, I guess you have to hype what you can.
Every year there’d be a big deal about Christmas (winter solstice, more or less), Easter (spring equinox, more or less), and harvest festival (autumn equinox, more or less). I’ve always been vaguely baffled that Christianity doesn’t really do or say anything about the summer solstice…
Well, they already have Jesus’s birthday (Christmas) and his death-and-resurrection-day (Easter); what else is there? He never married, so there’s no anniversary; and he never had any kids, so no “first-begotten-son’s-day” or whatever either. So what else could there be? “Immaculate Conception day” would have to be nine months before his birthday, not six (which puts it closer to Easter, that’s a weird coincidence). Mary’s birthday? The other Mary’s birthday?
Also, in terms of things done in agrarian societies, Spring planting and Fall harvest are relatively discreet events that each happen within a certain time-window. Midsummer would be more of a long period of tending crops as they grow; so there might simply be less of a Big Event to stick a holiday onto.
Raging Bee, that would depend on the climate. Hence in Jewish tradition Passover is associated with the early grain harvest, Shavuot, 7 weeks later, with the height of the grain harvest and the early fruits, the 15th of Av (tends to fall in late July or early August) with grape harvest. Interestingly Hanukkah falls during the olive harvest, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the rabbis that wanted to de-emphasize the Hasmoneans invented the oil miracle for that reason.
KG @22
They are both astronomically and agriculturally significant dates.
I’m leaning towards the option of just letting them be offended if that’s what they want. If we’re all lucky (and this includes the Christians) then they’ll Rumpelstiltskin-stomp their way right out of Christianity. Just like any reasonable person who doesn’t want to support pedophiles, liars, thieves, and hypocrites.
#25 @ragingbee
Nine months apart is not coincidence. They did that on-purpose. That’s why there’s shepherds out in the fields when they wouldn’t be.
badland, still persevering pointlessly, you are.
All I did is to note that only such as you use that tired old trope about men in dresses.
I never claimed that; did you not notice that I used brackets to denote a meta-comment?
See, ‘men in dresses’ ≡ “kilt-wearing Scots”. Same type of thing.
They are both traditional garb, no? Not dresses, other than in the sense that they dress the people.
My “passion for kilts”?
<snicker>
Right. So, “The idea that Catholics, a religion headed by blokes in fancy dresses, are having a collective freakout about trans people is deeply amusing to me.” is but a gentle suggestion that Catholic vetsments could be considered, from an atheist’s point of view, a type of dress.
Nothing to do with supposed transvestism. Got it.
(Perish the thought!)
You know, a kilt being something functionally indistinguishable from a skirt to uninformed eyes.
<snicker>
Sure you do. And very credibly, too!
<smirk>
“The idea that Catholics, a religion headed by blokes in Catholic vetsments [which] could be considered, from an atheist’s point of view, a type of dress, are having a collective freakout about trans people is deeply amusing to me.” is what you meant. Ostensibly, after the fact.
Got it.
You over-egged the snickery smirky pudding a bit there John, poor soul. I shall leave you to your defense of vestments (such passion!) and kilts and Scotsmen and the like xx
badland:
Pudding-making soul, according to you. Pudding successfully made.
You think I’m somehow defending vestments (‘clothing’, look at the etymology) and kilts and Scotsmen and the like? Heh.
It follows that you imagine you are attacking of vestments (such passion!) and kilts and Scotsmen and the like xx, since otherwise I could not otherwise be defending them.
(Deepeer and deeper into the briar patch you go)
—
Again: “The idea that Catholics, a religion headed by blokes in fancy dresses, are having a collective freakout about trans people is deeply amusing to me.”
vs
“The idea that Catholics are having a collective freakout about trans people is deeply amusing to me.”
What is the difference? I mean, you could have written the latter, but you wrote the former.
I mean, it’s not about cross-dressing being the amusing part, right?
And therefore not alluding to cross-gendering, so that cross-dressers are amusing when they decry cross-genderers.
You’ve been explicit it’s not what it obviously is, but your gaslighting is feeble.
So. Tell me more about your amusement regarding the blokes in fancy dresses, as opposed to blokes in non-fancy dresses. Be aware that almost all formal wear is fancy, and people dress in it.
[BTW, those snickers/smirks? Onomatopoeia, they are]
Oh look, someone has deigned to play with John… who clearly does not know what onomatopoeia is.
<snicker>
Almost as bad as wearing a dress, that would be.
So. Care to elucidate the (mistaken) basis or bases upon which you offer that opinion, Holms?
(Does the extended semiotic field confuse you?)
Heh.
“someone has deigned to play with John”
Fine. Their informed choice, who am I to deny that someone?
(Who is most certainly not you, right? 😉
—
BTW, Holms: what do you reckon about this:
“The idea that Catholics, a religion headed by blokes in fancy dresses, are having a collective freakout about trans people is deeply amusing to me.”
Nothing at all to do with transvestism, in your estimation?
(Now, blokes in tutus, well…)
The basis would be the meaning of the word onomatopoeia. As for that comment, if I had wanted to opine on it, I’d have done so.
Republican logic (aka “pomerantz”)
“Trump Media Stock Plunges Amid Truth Social Losses; Trump’s Unhinged Easter Meltdown; A Closer Look”
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q_ly6F5gttE
In defence of the catholic church, their garb provided Doom Metal bands like Ghost with a pretty impressive image
(Papa Emeritus approaches the audience while the chorus goes “Belial, Behemoth, Belzebub”!).
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=d8RH8RO0eR0
Ahcuach @ 2
I think the emperor of the known universe (Christopher Walken) is entitled to celebrate as much as he wants.
No worries, Holms, and grats on your deigning.
So the basis is not that, else you’d have written “The basis is be the meaning of the word onomatopoeia.”, yet you don’t specify the criteria upon which that condition would be met.
Anyway, I represent it thus when I actually snicker, smirk, or otherwise vocalise or make some moue.
Not every time it happens, but only if it happens. I also use emoticons.
(Remember, you have many a time accused me of being an overly-literal person; did you therefore imagine those were mere phatic punctuations?)
The statements by Mike Johnson and others should be played on TV ads over and over to remind voters of MAGA stupidity.
It will not work on the core voters, but may help the undecided make up their minds.
PS -Please sell us blue caps with the phrase “Jewish Space Lasers”. We are Team Jewish Space Lasers, baby!
I should have remembered non-literal writing poses difficulties for you. And you still don’t understand onomatopoeia.
You don’t get it. The liberals used Jewish time machines to go back to 2009 and make March 31 Visibility Day.
*delurks*
Good lord he’s a thirsty one.
NO YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ONOMATOPOEIA, NOT ME, AND HERE ARE MY REPLIES SHOWING HOW LITTLE I CARE.
John, o vestment-frotter, you have your use in the ecosystem. You’re a blog-maggot. Marcus has the measure of you but, alas, I made the mistake of engaging.
Shoo.
<my name is John
< and I trol
< my anger is
< very smol
😉
(Honestly John’s incoming essay on how utterly unaffected he is by this willl be worth my tortured HTML)
Heh. Weak as fuck, badland.
(Men wearing dresses, oh my!)
Again: What is the difference? I mean, you could have written the latter, but you wrote the former.
I mean, it’s not about cross-dressing being the amusing part, right?
And therefore not alluding to cross-gendering, so that cross-dressers are amusing when they decry cross-genderers.
You’ve been explicit it’s not what it obviously is, but your gaslighting is feeble.
So. Tell me more about your amusement regarding the blokes in fancy dresses, as opposed to blokes in non-fancy dresses. Be aware that almost all formal wear is fancy, and people dress in it.
<smirk> ← affect
I didn’t know March 31 was Transgender Day of Visibility. I don’t remember the LGBT people in my circle mentioning it. I’d like for someone to make a poll, I’m starting to think that Republican politicians are keeping closer observance on these holidays than even the trans community.
Kinda like how conservatives think about transwoman dick more often than trans women think about their own dicks. Or how they talk about butt sex more than gay people.
John: unread.
I can only imagine your pain.
But yeah, bored now. You’re still unread! But I’m going to practice Ranum-zen and feel the pleasure of a Johnless life, bye bro for real.
badland:
Since there is no pain, that’s all anyone can do.
You imagine it all you want, you’re revealed yourself now.
Well, yeah.
Men in dresses railing against the Transgender Day of Visibility is not that amusing.
Again: why mention men in dresses, otherwise?
(Bored and transparently evasive, eh? Good combo)
I doubt that. You’ve shown yourself, rather informatively.
More to the point, had you not reacted as you did to my simple observation, and had you not persevered in avoiding the weight of it, you’d have had that pleasure much earlier. It was always available to you.
@John
Of course, you could refrain from repeatedly insisting that your misreading of badlands original comment is somehow correct.
Since it’s “Catholics and Christians” that are supposedly demanding apologies for getting Biden getting Trans cooties on their sacred ritual, it is indeed a bit ironic that their all- male priesthood wears long vestments a la Moses. It’s silly to pretend that their long robes aren’t a form of socially acceptable transvestism.
Badland is simply noting the hypocritical double standard.
Tethys, that’s how it works. Takes two to tango.
In what manner?
Here it is, in all its glory:
“badland, um, those are traditional vestments . Weight of history and all that.
Their liturgical garb was never seen as women’s clothing, other than by such as you, in modern times.”
What is the misreading to which you intend to refer, and how is the alleged misreading somehow incorrect?
Priests in liturgical garb are not men in dresses. That was my very point.
Only to ignoramuses.
Basically, they are traditional garb. Garb that only men wear — no woman can be a Catholic Priest, that’s in the rules. Only men ever wear that garb, and only men have worn it since time immemorial.
Not transvestism in any sense. Men’s religious garb.
It’s total bullshit.
Anyway, that’s not the point; the point is that the transvestism (which badland unequivocally if disingenuously denies was a thing) was linked as amusing in the light of trans rights.
Now, if you want to think that “my gentle suggestion that Catholic vetsments could be considered, from an atheist’s point of view, a type of dress” explains how blokes in fancy dresses having a collective freakout about trans people is deeply amusing, is funny, go for it.
I called it right. I am not wrong.
But sure, go ahead.
You want to hold that the Catholic hierarchy from the Pope down are cross-dressers, that is, that the all-male body is wearing women’s clothing, and therefore it’s hypocritical of them to freakout about trans people on that basis, I can’t stop you.
It’s a very stupid and ignorant thing to believe, but it’s your call.
Care to explain how that initial eructation is supposedly amusing without relying on the stupid conceit that men wearing the garb of a male-only priesthood entails crossdressing?
(Actually, they’re more like robes or togas than like dresses. But that’s taking the conceit seriously enough to discuss it)
Anyway. It ain’t the Catholics that are the problem, it’s the Evangelicals and other such USAnian styles.
(Biden is a Catholic)
[OT]
BTW, I was an altar boy for a number of years.
I used to help the priests dress up for the mass; under all that garb, it was trousers and a singlet and a shirt.
cf. https://www.togetheratonealtar.catholic.edu.au/craft/the-priest-prepares-for-mass/
@ ^
Thanks for your invaluable contribution there Morales. I was away for the hols but I see you remain as insightful and popular as ever. X-D
(Also, standing ovation to badland for running rings around Morales. Not that it’s difficult, but one needs a certain “intestinal fortitude” to tolerate the utter tedium. )
Ah yes, the unspecified achievement. Running rings, sure.
(heh)
Meanwhile, Catholic men in dresses railing against Transgender Day of Visibility!
(In my orbit, they are)
[PS Welcome back, Slymy Bob. Missed ya.]
Poor John.
It must be so difficult to never be able to detect jokes, or engage in a conversation without having to demonstrate how very right and superior you are.
Even when he’s wrong, he’s right!
Heh. Your pity is misplaced, Tethys.
I do get a lot of comments about my correctness and my superiority and how annoying some people find it.
And fair enough, only to be expected. I mean, if such people were themselves less incorrect and less inferior, they’d be on my wavelength and have no reason to find it annoying. Peers.
So, what is it you about which you imagine I am wrong?
(What joke do you believe I did not detect?)
I take it Morales new strategy to avoid being humiliated by losing argument after argument is to simply make himself beyond parody. X-D
I take it bob the Unsilent’s new strategy to avoid being humiliated by losing argument after argument is to simply make himself beyond parody. X-E
Your obsession with me, bob, is weird and unhealthy. But it is yours.
Meh. Since it’s personal to you, bob, I will stroke your swollen neediness.
Do you care to deny that, over the many years over which you have obsessed over me, I have noted multiply that I address comments to they to whom I am responding?
I mean, if you do that, we’ll both know you are lying.
From there, it goes most straight-forwardly, if you care to consider the immediately preceding comment.
The phrasing is bespoke, more indicative of a reflection than of an emission.
You, of course, latched on to it in the very same way that you have accused me of doing in the past, and which you called ‘hyper-literalism’.
So it goes.
(You cannot make yourself beyond parody, QuietOscillation. You’ve achieved transcendence at that)
So what? Did you follow my links? If so, you would now know that as I said: “history is actually a bit more complicated than that” and no, Christianity had not:
as sonofrojblake claimed @20.
Does anyone else laugh when they see the author of 24 out of 65 of the comments in this thread call other people obsessed? I sure do, especially when the person so accused is only the author of 3/65.
Gee, I wonder whether this author might imagine that people are discussing him, not the topic at hand.
(The unnamed author, whoever that may be! Who could ever know?)
Hey Holms, what about men in dresses?
Does that make it particularly amusing when railing against the Transgender Day of Visibility, as the original claim had it, or do you buy that it was a instead but a gentle suggestion that Catholic vetsments could be considered, from an atheist’s point of view, a type of dress?
(emphasis in the original)
2:1 comment ratio, much of it mere bickering, yet criticises others for going off topic.
Oh right I forgot -- when you do it, they aren’t off-topic posts, they’re retorts. Completely different.
@KG, 65:
I read your links. They seem almost monomaniacally dedicated to debunking the idea that Jesus = Mithras-with-a-coat-of-paint. I never mentioned Mithras. In fact, I never mentioned ANY gods, just “festivals”. And if you’re going to sit there ad tell me that humans weren’t celebrating solstices and equinoxes since before Noah was in short pants, I think it’s you who needs a history lesson.
Hey Holms, what about men in dresses?
Does that make it particularly amusing when railing against the Transgender Day of Visibility, as the original claim had it, or do you buy that it was a instead but a gentle suggestion that Catholic vetsments could be considered, from an atheist’s point of view, a type of dress?
(emphasis in the original)
“¿Qué gigantes?” dijo Sancho Panza.
“Aquellos que allí ves,” respondió su amo,“de los brazos largos, que los suelen tener algunos de casi dos leguas.”
==> #37.
Hey Holms, what about men in dresses?
Does that make it particularly amusing when railing against the Transgender Day of Visibility, as the original claim had it, or do you buy that it was a instead but a gentle suggestion that Catholic vetsments could be considered, from an atheist’s point of view, a type of dress?
(emphasis in the original)
—
Here, for you: https://philarchive.org/archive/NADCFT-2
Alas, poor Tethys.
The irony of your windmill-tilting does not escape me, though it apparently eludes you.
Again:
Tethys, that’s how it works. Takes two to tango.
In what manner?
Here it is, in all its glory:
“badland, um, those are traditional vestments . Weight of history and all that.
Their liturgical garb was never seen as women’s clothing, other than by such as you, in modern times.”
→ What is the misreading to which you intend to refer, and how is the alleged misreading somehow incorrect? ←
Priests in liturgical garb are not men in dresses. That was my very point.
—
Gotta love how people assert I’m somehow wrong, but when called to express what the alleged wrongness entails, they just reassert the claim.
(Also, that was one hell of a boring book and I only ever skimmed it. Was amusing for its day, no doubt)
==> #37
Heh heh heh.
You have zero idea of what I’ve written, have you, Holms?
The meaning lies within a semiotic field, Holms.
Just as a non-verbal noise can be expressed by a vague approximation of the sound and its associated written form, so can a facial expression be expressed by a marked-up denotation of its written form.
Very much the same thing. You know, like the bob’s repetitive X-D, which represents LOL as an emoticon.
—
I do love how hung up you’re on that, and how your every comment is about me and my merits.
And, for the umpteenth time, for someone who claims to desire fewer comments from me and who should by now be aware of the vastly numerous times I’ve stated that I will respond to personal comments, you sure elicit numerous more comments from me.
Your words say one thing, your actions another.
(The inference is inescapable)
Idiot. Here’s the relevant sequence of comments:
#71 You ask me to comment on the vestments argument, previously between you and badland.
#73 I direct you to #37.
#74 You copy paste #71, requesting me to comment on the vestments argument again.
#76 I repeat my response.
Given that both of those times I directed you to read #37 were in response to your requesting my input* specifically on the vestment argument, which part of comment 37 do you think I was directing you to read? It should have been obvious I was referring to the latter part.
Or perhaps you are just defensive about the onomatopoeia dig. Either way, your claim that I’m ‘hung up’ on it is charmingly silly.
* And specifically my input on that subject, as opposed to all the other people that ignored the subject -- valuable input it must be.
Fewer comments, or fewer bad faith comments? Big difference.
Morales continuing to win friends and influence people I see. X-D
(Morales, when even Holms is running rings around you, it’s definitely time to give up.)
Monty Python & The Holy Grail: “…It’s just a flesh wound…” -- YouTube
Um, I’ve been running rings around you for years now, and you haven’t given up.
But sure, you indulge in your fantasy.
—
Meanwhile, someone tried to tie Catholics to the MAGA faux outrage via the “men in dresses” trope, which of course is most amusing in the light of Transgender Day of Visibility being the target of those men in dresses.
Right?
I love the tapdancing around it… what was it? Ah yes, “You have fought valiantly against my gentle suggestion that Catholic vetsments could be considered, from an atheist’s point of view, a type of dress.”
X-D — tell me more about that. Does it signify something?
Did you literally laugh out loud? I very much doubt it — for you, it’s just something to write. Me, I’m better than that — you yourself have often claimed I am hyper-literal, yet I envision more of a <hee-haw> noise. Bob may be silent, but the ass brays.
—
Anyway. Not mostly Catholics; mostly Evangelicals. Trumpistas. The Trump Rump.
“Men in dresses” is very silly.
Bah. You’re just wanking, now.
But sure:
(1) Gotta love how people assert I’m somehow wrong, but when called to express what the alleged wrongness entails, they just reassert the claim.
(2) We both know why you won’t actually discuss the issue; to you, trans women are basically men in dresses. The intended joke makes perfect sense to you. But, strictures.
Heh heh heh. Everyone says I’m wrong, nobody cares to attempt to explain how.
Just, well. Reassert the claim.
(So weak!)
—
You’ve sprung into a stimulus-response reflex reaction, there.
You, of all people, should know what you claim to desire.
I mean, I know what you desire: over the years you have made it abundantly clear that any comment from me is one too many. You want me to go away. Or at least to comment as little as possible.
Even here you go on about how many comments I make. As if you weren’t adding to the count, knowingly.
Quoth you: “Does anyone else laugh [<hee-haw>]when they see the author of 24 out of 65 of the comments in this thread call other people obsessed?”
A comment that has nothing to do with the topic, or even with the conversation.
The very sort of comment that you, Holms, have been told most explicitly and unequivocally and repeatedly is likely to get a retort, such as this one.
—
So. Have you noticed not one of your comments is about anything other than me?
(That’s perfectly normal, no?)
You think you know why I won’t comment on the vestments comment, but your surmise is wrong. Given we are speaking of my own mind here, you gain no traction by insisting otherwise. The answer was already given at #37 (for the slow: the second sentence); the obvious inference being that I simply had no desire to comment.
Also, I didn’t reassert the claim at all, I made a new claim: that you are defensive about the original dig. Right or wrong, that assertion is not a reassertion of the original.
___
I gave you a hint in my previous comment: “Fewer comments, or fewer bad faith comments? Big difference.” I added some emphasis to assist. As for adding to your post count, unless I have control over you, each post of yours is of your own volition and not mine. Including your next one, and the one after and so on. All choices made by you, not me.
Ah, but responses to your personal comments are only possible when I have a comment to which to respond, and that’s entirely on you. Just admit it, you want me to comment more, though you say you don’t.
And you have on more than one occasion popped into comment-threads to note what proportion of comments I make. We’ve done this before, multiple times, you know. The very same thing.
(You little tease, you!)
Heh. Obviously (see how I am quoting you?) you have sufficient desire to comment, just about me and only me. The topic at hand? Bah. Gotta be about me.
That’s been obvious for ages.
—
y, dándole una lanzada en el aspa, la volvió el viento con tanta furia que hizo la lanza pedazos, llevándose tras sí al caballo y al caballero, que fue rodando muy maltrecho por el campo.
No sé por qué empezaste a escribir en español, pero repetiendote no vale. Como ya te dice.
You are the one tilting at windmills.
(And you didn’t note my Shakesperian allusion, did ya? Heh)
How, O Tethys, do you contend that I am somehow wrong, that I somehow missed some joke, that I somehow misapprehended something?
I keep asking, I keep getting that sort of bluster. So weak!
(Men in dresses, so very specially Catholic, right?)
#83
The decision to post a comment is made by the commenter at each occasion, all else is a weak deflection. The choice is yours to reply or not, at all times.
As usual, you neglect that this applies equally to every post of yours in reply to me.
___
As has been pointed out to you -- and was obvious all along -- that was a direction to read the latter half. Given that this has been explicitly pointed out to you, this is yet another confirmation of your bad faith.
You will now decide whether to reply or not; if you refuse to admit it is your choice, then the only other possibility is that you are powerless to refrain.
Holms, it’s so fucking obvious you sought to provoke this comment from me.
I suppose I should (yet again!) to be the one who desists, lest the thread become nothing but your bleatings and my mockeries.
Only because you decided to reply to me. There it is, most impotent and flabby, your reply.
Again: how many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many times now have I told you I will respond to personal comments?
Not exactly an unexpected decision, which I’ve asserted so many times since so long ago.
Both you and I know this very comment would not exist but for your preceding comment.
You want me to either dishonour my word? Of course you do. Thus this sort of thing.
If you hadn’t posted your previous comment, I’d not have posted this comment.
We both know that. Justified true belief.
So, you could indeed have prevented this comment, were you able to restrain your adoration of my abuse.
Since you yourself couldn’t find the restraint, you now querulously appeal to me to dishonor my attestation.
Such attempted manipulation doesn’t work on me.
So. Surely you are not still trying to pretend you’re not seeking to make me respond, according to what I have asserted most unequivocally and remarkably repeatedly.
Is this some sort of test to see whether what I have asserted so forcefully for so long is not what I actually do? Has it ever yielded any other results, other than for pragmatism, such as now?
(Perversity knows no bounds)
—
How it is not utterly obvious to you that each and every comment you are making is all about me, and specifically me?
(Your personal ratio is rapidly expanding as we banter, you know)
—
Anyway.
Bigots will seize upon anything to advance bigotry
March 31st is the day that has been designated Transgender Day of Visibility and president Biden made an annual proclamation to that effect. The date is an international recognition that has been around since 2009. The White House routinely issues proclamations such as this to recognize various things, and this one was one of 11 that were issued on March 29th.
[Oh, right. I quoted the OP, above. Obviously. Still. Must not plagiarise! :)]
I’m just watching to see how many times El Cid is going attack the giants before he concedes that they are windmills.
Muy maltrecho does roll off the tongue nicely.
Heh. Go on.
What are the windmills, and who are the giants?
Tell me more.
You got nothing but bluster.
You allege a misreading, then you just repeat it’s a misreading.
Do try to attempt to justify your speculative and hopeful claim.
Meantime, I called out this comment:
“The idea that Catholics, a religion headed by blokes in fancy dresses, are having a collective freakout about trans people is deeply amusing to me.”
Suddenly, it was nothing to do but for a gentle suggestion, when called-out.
People got upset.
Bah.
—
And I’m watching how many more comments you will address to me rather than to the topic so that I can respond and you can claim I’m attacking a giant (you) who is actually a windmill (which I concede).
—
I’m not tilting at anything, you are tilting at me. That’s the reality.
Live with it.
Two rants -- one starting off with open anger, thank you! -- in response to two very mild nothing-much comments. Ooh, someone is nettled.
And how many (etc.) times have I pointed out that each time you post is a choice? You are not bound by your earlier statements, you choose to post anew with every occasion. Up to ten choices to post in a row! Calling it ‘dishonouring your word’, my god you are a laughable fool!
“Both you and I know this very comment would not exist but for your preceding comment” -- correction: it exists because you chose to make it exist. Yet you persist with the pretence that you cannot but reply. And, if it is true when you say it, then it applies equally to my posts in reply to you: your comment, according to you, prompted mine, therefore you have nothing to complain about.
And we have all seen you nitpick someone’s post without them first addressing you; by your logic that then immediately justifies them posting infinitely until you desist. Which we know you hate to do, as when you do eventually desist, it is not without a shitload of whining.
The path you have chosen is to present yourself as powerless before your craving. You will now reply.
One more comment by me about your comment about me.
Exactly what you wanted, Holms. More comments from me.
Because I honour my word. Grew up in an honour culture. You wouldn’t know about that.
—
Meanwhile, as per the OP:
Bigots will seize upon anything to advance bigotry
March 31st is the day that has been designated Transgender Day of Visibility and president Biden made an annual proclamation to that effect. The date is an international recognition that has been around since 2009. The White House routinely issues proclamations such as this to recognize various things, and this one was one of 11 that were issued on March 29th.
Not so much about me, is the OP.
But then, someone joked about how amusing it was men in dresses (Catholics, specifically, supposedly standing in for the USA right-wing MAGA media) dissed the transgender Day of Visibility. Very importnant to mention the dresses, lest the joke be lost.
—
Alright, no more retorts from me to you, O obsessive fanboi. On this thread.
(as I foreshadowed, so it has come to pass)
Thanks Mano. (And sorry for my participation in this absurd nonsense.)