The March for ¡SCIENCE! that served as another shitlib therapy session in cities across the US was a perfect opportunity for dissidents to troll the cartoon science lovers marching with their papier mache effigies. Did anyone record themselves approaching the degenerate freak parade and asking “What are your thoughts on the science of race and sex differences?” One man with a set of brass ones could’ve sent an entire march of libfruits into hysterical meltdowns with that simple direct question.
-
Pages
Twitter Updates
Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.
Recent Comments
gunslingergregi on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… cortesar on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… posts only tweets on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… cortesar on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… cortesar on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… Veritas on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… General Lee, Speakin… on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… Anonymous on Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat C… Captain Obvious on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… jOHN MOSBY on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… Top Posts
- Cesar Sayoc, "White Male" (& Deep State Updates)
- Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat Catladies Hate Trump
- Mocking The Globohomo Corporatocracy
- Tourette's Game
- When The Jumbotron Test Is Crushed
- The Confound Of Silence
- "Conspiracy Theory" Conspiracy
- The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
- Slutty Women Are Unhappier Than Caddish Men
- The Great Men On Holding Marital Frame
Categories
science (noun)
1 The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
‘the world of science and technology’
1.1 A particular area of science.
‘veterinary science’
count noun ‘the agricultural sciences’
More example sentences
1.2 A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
‘the science of criminology’
More example sentences
1.3 archaic Knowledge of any kind.
‘his rare science and his practical skill’
March for science? You might as well march for private property. Makes no sense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] March For Science Signaling […]
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Science is the systematic search for truth. Period. Don’t think the shitlibs or academics get this anymore….
LikeLiked by 4 people
If a “truth” is arrived at without observable evidence, but a lot of highly educated people are convinced anyway, is that science?
Darwinism perverted science, turned it into a numbers fallacy, a popularity contest combined with appeals to authority. Sure, no one has ever observed one species beget a different species, but a lot of really smart people believe speciation occurs reaallllly slowwwwly over time, so it must be true. Few people are willing to endure ridicule because they don’t accept Darwin’s atheist creation myth as any sort of science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
.
LikeLike
Just another part of the libtard narrative. “We are scientific and well versed in all things scientific. Our opponents are Neanderthals that want to kill 6 million jews and all black people!”
Did you see Bill Nye’s recent comments?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/bill-nye-makes-a-false-claim-about-the-us-constitution-again/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bill Nye Science Guy is certifiable. He’s like a dumber, less articulate Richard Dawkins.
LikeLiked by 2 people
They tried that whole “but, science!” moral posturing canard up in Canada during Stephen Harper’s erstwhile Cuckservative Party administration, when Stevie started defunding some frivolous environmental programs but mostly when he clamped down on government “scientists” from going on globull warming crusades at publick expense. It severely triggered Birkenstock-wearing, Volvo S70 -driving, craft beer libruls with extreme prejudice. And it was good.
LikeLike
these people don’t even know what carbon dioxide is. just call it the dunning-kruger march.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, they just call it “carbon”. So, instead of plant food, what joe public thinks of is black shit pouring out of chimneys covering everything in white man cancer. White man being the inventors of industrialization.
For fucking lies, as usual, because, as usual, facts mean nothing to scum such as this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Science. Like how there are all these women out there with penises. Lolz
LikeLiked by 1 person
XX = Female
XY = Male
Science, ya fuckin’ cunts!
LikeLike
Yup there are only two gametes: sperm or eggs. You have one or the other
LikeLike
Or none. There are a number of genetic syndromes which dont produce eithet
LikeLike
Read about Swyer syndrome (female fenotype with XY karyotype, dont experience puberty, need hormonal replacement).
You see now why we need science? cause there are too many ar10308 out there.
LikeLike
How many cases of Swyer Syndrome are documented?
Should we restructure our entire fucking society to account for those tiny number of unfortunate afflicted?
LikeLike
Yeah. Let’s build our entire society around afflicted humans. What could possibly go wrong?
LikeLike
You are quite paranoid (too much time spent on returnofomegas?) . I am not suggesting to restructure anything, just pointing that you are not entirely right here.
LikeLike
Science:
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://www.amazon.com/Cleansing-Fatherland-Medicine-Racial-Hygiene/dp/0801848245/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&qid=1493067248&sr=8-22&keywords=medical+third+reich
LikeLike
Leftist logic:
1 – Denying or questioning climate change = bad science denier!!
2 – Denying or questioning race and biology = good science denier!!
Now repeat after me..
LikeLiked by 3 people
Climate change. Carbon dioxide being the critical greenhouse gas it is, makes me wonder why we don’t just fill a tin of the stuff with a transparent glass/ perspex end which is orientated to the sun.
Since it’s such a potent greenhouse gas, and obviously in a sealed container in concentrations (100%) far in excess of the atmospheric 0.04% the heating property of CO2 will be massively in excess of that ‘observed’ in the Earth’s atmosphere.
One should be able to pass a primary cooling circuit through the device and draw off heat to drive a turbine.
Presto!! Free electricity, thanks to the GloBull warming crowd.
LikeLike
You are very wrong here. I know a lot of red pill (and simply reasonable) guys who were at that march. Not sure about US but in many european capitals it was about financing science rather than any sjw agenda.
LikeLike
Those “men” are cryptoSJWs. Opportunists. Or dunning-krugites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why? I like science, I was a scientist myself, I want the government to divert more funds into science instead of traning muslims terrorists in community centers and feminists in bottom tier universities.
I dont go to “marches” cause it’s a waste of time IMO but I dont see why others shouldn’t.
LikeLike
@ Caramba
The idea that such a thing exists as a “reasonable” person is a strange one, as is the idea that “science” can save us from ourselves, or – also a common notion – that “politics” can or is intended to resolve all or even *any* of the important issues that are part of the human condition.
Humans are – just for a short list of our shortcomings – greedy, selfish, short-sighted, insatiable, status-seeking, vengeful, and vainglorious. Our principle tools for personal advancement are 1) lies 2) violence.
“Science” cannot change that. Nor can politics. On the contrary, they are merely the tools of humans, and if people are evil, then science and politics will typically be used to create or amplify evil. End of story.
The most important of all sciences is politics, which is the science of rulership.
It is not possible to have a society in which all are masters, neither one in which all are servants, yet – whatever their personal estimations of themselves – most people are only fit to be one or the other, Given that, the best society humans can achieve (i.e., the one most profitable for the rulers) is one in which each person is happy with his place. Thus we are ruled by propaganda that teaches us to accept all kinds of soothing absurdities, such as that we the voters are the “true” rulers, or that “our leadership works for us”, or that our nation defends us by sending us to our deaths.
Included in that propaganda is the propaganda that the purpose of science is to advance the welfare of humans. Of course from time to time it does do that. But these are just well-publicized by-products of the essential human greed for power and *more*.
LikeLike
I watched some of the March Against White Men’s Inventions here in Portlandia, OR, with TV muted per usual. It was the predictable assemblage of chinless hipsters, tattooed androgynous grrrls, ropey scrawny hippie grannies, and long-haired Boomer burnouts. IOW, a blob of HRClinton voters. Physiognomy is real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fund your own research faggot
LikeLike
O/T but what a bunch of shitters.
http://people.com/movies/chris-pratt-admits-saying-blue-collar-americans-arent-represented-movies-stupid-thing-to-say-apology/
Pratt shouldn’t have apologized. Blue collar Americans AREN’T represented. Libfagets bitching about not enough diversitayy (as if blue collar = white) by picking a couple of directors (who make one film every few years) or arthouse flicks nobody saw. And Pratt must have ‘forgot’ that show he was on because light duty office workers are absolutely blue collar. Duh.
LikeLike
[One man with a set of brass ones could’ve sent an entire march of libfruits into hysterical meltdowns with that simple direct question.]
Another (simple direct question) never being asked:
“What is gender?” – that is to say as opposed to merely biological sex…
The ‘Goodbye, America’ blog post “Chestfeeding” links to a breastfeeding site which attempts to answer this dichotomy under its rubric of “Key terms and concepts”:
“Gender vs. Sex
Our reproductive organs and sexual anatomy define our physical sex – male, female, or intersex. Gender, however, is a person’s inner awareness of their femininity/masculinity.
In most cases, a person’s biological sex conforms to their gender and gender expression. The term for such people is cisgender. Transgender, transsexual, and genderfluid people have a gender identity or gender expression that does not match what their particular society expects of them according to their anatomy. Some trans people choose to use medical therapies such as hormone treatments and/or surgeries to alter their bodies. Others do not want or are unable to obtain such interventions, but may express their gender in other ways such as choices of clothing or makeup.”
“Our reproductive organs and sexual anatomy define our physical sex – male, female, or intersex” – so far so good and obvious from the moment of birth, even as we make allowances for those (one-in-millions) borderline cases of true hermaphroditism. But these rare and genuine occurrences do not negate the reality of sex-bifurcation in animal life; for if there WERE no such clear-cut distinction in biological sex we could never recognize or study these (extremely) rare and borderline exceptions.
So it’s abundantly obvious, then, where biological sex lies; but “gender” seems to be nothing more here than a “grammatical” notion – an admittedly “subjective” and FLUID concept – not a “natural” one.
Here comes the brass balls part: The question then becomes not so much “what” is gender as it stands in relation to biological sex (as surely it must bear SOME relation based upon the empirical facts of human anatomy and biochemistry) but rather WHERE is this “gender” since (according to their own definition) it’s clearly not in anyone’s actual brass balls?
Where is it? It must come from somewhere. Is it genetic? Is it “chemical” –
hormonal? – can’t be, since that SEEMS to relate to “biological sex”; although transgender people often seem to resort to such treatments. Where then does this “gender” come from – the mind, the “soul”?
Materialists of a “liberal” persuasion, in their relentless deconstruction of carefully “selected” religious beliefs and certain traditional practices, will loudly, gleefully, (and smugly) call for a proof of this so-called “soul” that modern science can never supply – Is it in the finger? Little toe? Limbic system, perhaps? Ha!
And yet, we are always and everyday asked to take this curious notion of “gender” as a literal truth on “faith” alone to the disruption our lives and our laws.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a dictionary from 1973 that I recently threw out due to the fact it no longer had a cover and was missing pages. I wish I hadn’t. I would be willing to bet that the definitions have been “corrected” a la Orwell to reflect the new politically correct term designed to give transgenders or confused teenagers justification for their unnatural behavior. Look at the difference in American vs. British definitions.
American:
Dictionary.com
1.
either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by SOCIAL and CULTURAL roles and behavior:
the feminine gender.
Compare sex (def 1).
2.
a similar category of human beings that is outside the male/female binary classification and is based on the individual’s PERSONAL AWARENESS or IDENTITY.
See also third gender.
Usage note
Although it is possible to define gender as “sex,” indicating that the term can be used when differentiating male creatures from female ones biologically, the concept of gender, a word primarily applied to human beings, has additional connotations—more rich and more amorphous—having to do with general behavior, social interactions, and most importantly, one’s fundamental sense of self.
Until recently, most people assumed that acknowledging one’s gender, or sex, was easy. You just checked the appropriate box on a standard form, choosing either “male” or “female,” according to the gender you had been assigned at birth based on visible anatomical evidence. But some people’s internal sense of who they are does not correspond with their assigned gender. And in fact, we now recognize that a complex spectrum between male and female exists not only mentally, psychologically, and behaviorally, but also anatomically; there have always been biologically intersex people.
Gender identity is complicated. Some people, perhaps most, do not question their assigned gender. But others perceive themselves as belonging to the opposite sex. Still others, some of whom identify themselves as genderqueer see themselves as neither male nor female, or perhaps as both, or as rotating between genders, or even as not belonging to any gender categorization at all.
Those who clearly see themselves as the opposite sex may or may not want to transition to it in some measure. Of those who do, some may complete that transition, but others may be happy to stop partway on a path that can include dressing and behaving like the opposite sex, although the desire to cross-dress can exist quite apart from issues of gender identity. Somewhere along the transitional path people may want to change their given names and adopt linguistic terms of their own choosing, including a variety of pronouns, as designations of themselves and others. Some will have hormone treatments and opt for various kinds of surgery—perhaps facial, perhaps on their bodies, perhaps ultimately including sex “reassignment” surgery (genital reconstruction). At any point, they may welcome or reject a “transsexual” or “transgender” label.
This array of life experiences has resulted in a veritable explosion of new, or newly adapted, vocabulary. Particularly striking and useful is the word cis or prefix cis- as in cis male, cis female, and cisgender, designating those whose sense of self matches their assigned gender. Using cis is a way to refer to these individuals without implying that “cis” people are the norm and all others a deviation from “normal.” It is notable that choices of gender beyond male and female are even appearing on social media sites. Clearly, gender is no longer a simple binary concept, if it ever was.
If someone has older dictionaries, I’d like to know when this change came about. I know it was NEVER considered anything other than biological sex or language gender when I was growing up.
Here is British Cambridge Dictionary definition:
1.
the physical and/or social condition of being male or female:
Usage:
Does this test show the gender of the baby?
Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age or disability is not allowed.
2.
all males, or all females, considered as one group:
I think both genders are capable of taking care of children.
Compare
I’ll say this for the Brits: They love their language and they don’t f*ck around with it. They’ll steal words from other languages but that has just made English have the most extensive vocabulary in the world. But, Americans have to programmed relentlessly to accept whatever their gloBLOWHOMO masters want.
LikeLike
[If someone has older dictionaries, I’d like to know when this change came about.]
[But, Americans have to programmed relentlessly to accept whatever their gloBLOWHOMO masters want.]
Both a good question and a good observation here. The issue, however, goes far beyond and farther back than this (fairly) recent perversion of the term “gender” – far out of and beyond my time, at any rate; so I had to sort it out for myself retroactively, having been effectively born into our current state of rhetorical decadence (although it’s gotten much worse since the 80’s & 90’s).
As far as American dictionaries are concerned, it all began in the fall of 1961 with the revision of Merriam Webster’s long-standing (and excellent ) unabridged dictionary and the subsequent issue of its (still current) WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY. Why revise a living monument of Anglo-American scholarship? The answer is twofold:
Practical Considerations [partially justified, yet amenable to innovation].
Political Considerations [misguided & ongoing as you can see].
In the first place, the dictionary (over the years) had become (and still is in its later printings) so good, full, and thorough that it was steadily becoming commercially and physically impractical to mechanically reproduce with the then current production processes – at least that’s what the G. & C. Merriam Co. thought at the time, for their dictionary used to be touted as practically “encyclopedic” in nature and scope. Whether this forcible abridgment was absolutely necessary or not is debatable; but it did have a few good side effect: the biographical and gazetteer sections were omitted and published separately as the larger (and better) Biographical and Geographical dictionaries, respectively.
Other cuts made far less sense; such as the trimming of many old, (older), and obscure and obsolete English words in (e.g. a Shakespearean context), and thus defeating a large share of the purpose for which a reader USES the damn thing.
There is a funny story about Rex Stout, author of the Nero Wolfe detective stories, and his reaction to all these “revisions”: he has Wolfe, in one of the novels, methodically and meditatively burning it page-by-page in his library/office.
The other, and far more insidious reason – the POLITICAL – began farther back in American time, in the 1930s (more or less), with the advent of Progressive Education, Transformational Grammar, and the gradual incorporation of Pragmatist ideas into our institutions as touted by such figures as John Dewey and (much later, and to a lesser extent) Noam Chomsky. All of this was a long time coming, the seeds of which had been planted even earlier, and with its full rotten harvest only truly manifesting itself in the late 60’s, 70’s, and beyond into The Way We Live Now.
The War of the Dictionaries is merely a side theater in this greater cultural struggle – ongoing struggle; one effect of which was the foundation and the still-current publication of THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY. But that war has largely been “lost” by people like us as any “new” dictionary is likely to show.
This so-called war (which was never really a “war”, but more like a gradual and ineluctable capitulation on the part of Our Elders Who Should Have Known Better [Cuckservatives] to those aforementioned insidious forces which now hold dominion outside of places like this blog) centers around whether American dictionaries should be either “prescriptive” in nature, as they decidedly were till A.D. (or should I fucking write “C.E.”, whatever THAT is suppose to mean) 1961, or “descriptive” (i.e. decadent) as they have been ever since; with the ogre of Political Correctness supervening over all.
For a short, readable, and very informative overview which fully addresses both of Anonymous White Male’s quotes as well as elucidating much of both historical and current interest regarding these issues, I would highly recommend THE WAR AGAINST GRAMMAR by David Mulroy, a professor of Ancient Greek. It’s available both new and used on Amazon.
Those readers of the Château who obviously enjoy ancient history will find one of Mulroy’s earlier chapters “Why Do We Always Start with the Greeks?” a fine summary and synthesis as well as a solid foundation upon which to build many an anti-Shitlib argument.
It’s a Red Pill Recommendation to All and Sundry.
LikeLike
Listen to William Shockley if you want to understand real science. It makes me wonder what someone like Shockley would have thought about the March for Science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gender is a GRAMMATICAL definition. WORDS have gender, PEOPLE have a sex. This is more obvious in, say, Spanish than English, but still. This is Orwellian horrifying NewSpeak.
LikeLike
Some local bluegrass musicians were doing a benefit for March for Science; after they had done one for SPLC. Sad, but they are from California…
LikeLike
I get web notifications from online science mags like New Scientist and Live Science. The image about the March for Science I saw recently (in the latter I think) had some woman holding up a cardboard sign saying that “science is not an alternative fact”, a clear jab at the alt-right and Trump. It was immediately obvious to me that the MfS was just going to be another excuse for the pussy-hat crew to virtue-signal and the pop-science press to demonstrate that it’s just as intellectually lazy as any other poz-media.
LikeLike