Thank you for describing for us what we are more and more frequently confronted with in society-- Seeing a 'dragon' causes, I suspect, a great jumble of emotions, and confusion. "Society" demands we accept the insanity before us, and that we be polite, and tolerant, while we are fundamentally repelled and instinctively want to protect any child within viewing distance. Is this really civilization? And what medical ethics apply here? ~ Ginger Breggin
The dollars seem to drive the "ethics" here, don't they? It's the slope from "can" to "should" as a rocket slide to Abaddon. Moral blindness as a market advantage. I might be rich by now if I took every shortcut of "can = should." But what would I face in the aftermath?
We have a plague of moral blindness providing market advantage. From the work done by highly educated human beings in bio laboratories. To the marketing and promotion of so-called vaccines to ethics departments to find every way to explain and justify killing other human beings, reborn aged, sick, helpless., to every kind of science that says what we can do with it? Let’s experiment and figure out how to make it pay…
And then what can it do? Control weather? Spit fire from the sky, transmit a disease, seize the mind of a person…. It seems we are trying to create the plagues of the Bible.
Thank you for a beautiful and thought provoking essay.
As an anarch, I am entirely with you. The mad scientists inflamed with the power of destruction, particularly those butchering children, have no place in civil society, nay, are arch criminals against the good, truth and beauty. Jail is too good for them. Hell beckons.
The libertarian, as I see it, makes no room for protecting society from predators. The anarch, as I see it, says everyone has a responsibility to protect society from predators. Far from the anarchic, we are currently ruled by predators.
Most leftist anarchists act as though, if you destroy society, utopia will spring up spontaneously in it's place. Of course that is just a childish version of communist utopia, which of course only ever results in communists killing off anyone who doesn't bow before them. The true anarch recognizes, civil society has to be constructed and maintained, like the anarch self, in the macro as in the micro. Such a civil society would put paramount, personal responsibility, but also the anarch responsible to something greater than himself. Of course we are far from that, industrial modernity having an infantilizing effect, aging adolescents looking to technocracy to protect them, eschewing God or the self.
Thanks, John. I think the Veil is lifting on demons and possession at a rapid clip. Of course that isn't necessarily the explanation for everything we see happening, but the fact that people are reincorporating this possibility is a good sign.
This "genderless dragon" represents more of the burgeoning propaganda designed to slow-walk us full-spectrum human beings into normalizing the bloodliner quasi-hybrids who are already here, clothed in human-like skin but truly of another species altogether. I mean, seriously, first it was "let's normalize trannies," and now this. I see the agenda on full display: They expect us to worship these things as idols, to give over our Creator-given power to them. I do not consent! Thanks for bringing this to our attention in your unique and creative way.
I thought tongue-piercings were pretty strange back in the 90's. Every time I met someone with one of those I thought, "You'll probably regret that choice someday." Now, they seem almost quaint.
We are all part of a culture and civilization. Libertarian thinking degrades both. Tolerance is not a virtue.
John Zmirak at The Stream wrote a column a few months back that claimed that after the USSR's collapse, Russian leaders analyzed their.situation. and.concluded that the best way to rebuild and maintain a functioning society would be to center it on Christianity. They may not believe in it themselves, but they will nurture and protect the Christian faith. Sodomy is not making any inroads in Russia, and I suspect that a Russian dragon lady might meet an untimely end by tumbling off a building or down a stairwell.
This stands to reason. I am not at all sure, for instance, how seriously Putin takes his own Christian faith. But I am certain that he takes the concept of a renewed and revitalized Orthodox Russia very seriously.
Yes, this is something I thought about too. Of course, the current arbiters of "human rights" are currently on the dragon's side. Maybe that will change soon.
First of all: thank you for drawing attention to the creature. I would have preferred if it had remained out of my life, but I suppose that’s not a matter of choice.
Ignoring something is a damned comfortable thing. Yet, there are two paths to reaching that state... either laziness and a genuine disregard, or taking a rest. For the first, all I can say is that even God spits out the lukewarm. For the second... let the person rest. I was here too. It was good, peaceful. Then, after a while, someone hit me so hard that I had to say, "fuck, hell no!" I guess this post was meant for them.
Nevertheless, I have no idea what could have happened. He seemed like a perfectly normal guy. I agree that withdrawing attention seems to be the most effective approach. But I believe he could come back, even if there might be no return in several respects. He could even be the one who prevents such horrors, and I think that would be a good enough reason for forgiveness.
(And the doctors should be banned from practicing for life... and they should be thankful if they get off with just that.)
I believe anyone could come back. But I think in his case any kind of mundane solution is out of reach. He has transformed himself into a poisoned poisoner, and is having a blast drawing attention to his own self-destruction. This isn't the sort of madness that can be healed by human methods. But God has His own methods, so you never know.
I am a pretty anarco-libertarian libertarian. I am struggling with my thoughts on this one.
On the one hand, I agree with you that this is a f***ed-up mess of a person. I certainly agree that you have the right to shoot this being if it trespasses on your property. I certainly agree that business owners should shun such a weirdo (if for no other reason than simple practicality -- if this person is crazy enough to do this to itself, think of what else it might be crazy enough to do). Lastly, I absolutely agree that the doctors who indulged this are at serious moral fault.
Should any of this be actually ILLEGAL, however? Punishable by threat of violence?
Maybe. Maybe the doctors are guilty of mutilation in indulging the insane fantasies of this sick individual. But ... I also might argue that, if society were not making such a (top-down, from the demons themselves) effort to "normalize" this, we might just laugh at it and send it on its way.
I'm not sure. It's just that I am just as suspicious of that which smells like rightist authoritarianism as Leftist (though I certainly align with the right on a lot of key points at this time). I happen to love the iconography of dragons, though I'd never want to mutilate myself to BE one. Is the reverse-slippery-slope of this to make dragon iconography illegal by threat of violence? I'm not trying to be histrionic here; just asking a genuine question. Would that be the ideal in the eyes of the Christian right?
As a tangent, this extreme body modification obsession is growing in popularity. 15” of fame for some. I however see it as a manifestation of truly dark and satanic nature and or psychiatric illness. Attached is a pic of another extremely modified human before and after. I see the before pics and some are truly beautiful people. Very sad.
The extreme body mod phenomenon is indeed very sad and definitely is a mental illness IMO. I see it as another symptom of a deranged society that has zero interest in helping people to be comfortable in the bodies they were born into and every bit of interest in encouraging that mental illness that results from a body dysphoria that -- ironically enough -- is a byproduct of said society. FUBAR!
What's even weirder than Guinness having a "most-tattooed" category is that it's broken down to tenths of a percentile. Anyway, I guess this means people will start tattooing their spleens and livers next, and the winners will be declared by arthroscopic camera..
🤣 I came of age in the 1970s. I have a (1) tatoo on my forearm. Have long regretted it, considered having it removed or covered with a neutral, all black band. Ultimately I decided to just leave it, as a reminder to be humble and remember my stupidity.
I’ve lived in Germany for many years, and the tattooing phenomenon here is simply out of control. Young attractive women with both legs nearly covered, neck tattoos, face tattoos. Hopefully many of these young people will some day also become humble when their wearable artworks become blurred beyond recognition on their sagging wrinkled skin.
Legal freedom does not entail freedom from social consequences though, people always seem to strawman the libright position by ignoring that. You have a moral right to pay other people to give you disfiguring surgeries to look like a dragon or whatever if you want, but people are also perfectly in their right to not hire you or let you near their kids if they want. Realistically no matter how freakish someone is there will always be some people who are willing to tolerate it, but since you will pay a severe social penalty you will have to weigh the consequences of abnormal behavior before engaging in it.
"You have a moral right to pay other people to give you disfiguring surgeries to look like a dragon or whatever if you want, but people are also perfectly in their right to not hire you or let you near their kids if they want."
I understand this position, and I am not strawmanning it. But this "moral right" is where the waters always get muddy, and has a tendency to collapse on contact with reality.
Do I have a moral right to drive my car at any speed I want? In principle, maybe, but only if there were no possibility of collision with other cars or pedestrians or property. The same could be said of dragon-men. If they were cursed to prowl the forbidden wastes with other monsters, maybe that is its "moral right." But not when they're shopping for makeup at Walmart.
And that's to make no mention of the "moral right" of the surgeons to ply their trade on this guy, who is quite obviously insane (or something worse). This casual and profitable mutilation of human flesh carries with it deleterious and demoralizing network effects in the population at large, who will also come to see humans as a trivial object, to be experimented on for fun and profit. Threat assessment isn't just about what's currently staring you right in the face. But I don't think you need to play deep chess to see the dangers of transhuman "medicine" at play here.
I suppose that's the point of having different nations, people with contradicting values can have their own societies governed based on their preferences. Some places will have different speed limits or maybe no speed limit at all, and that's perfectly fine if it's based on the value preferences of the people living there. I already stated that libertarians support having a choice in what people you live around and interact with (although some also believe in open borders which seems to be a cognitively dissonant position), you can self-segregate yourself from people you don't like. This is basically what everyone except anarchists and globohomo types already support but I guess what makes libertarians different is wanting what are right now political processes to take place through privatized processes instead. I think the ideal for all identity groups is to mostly live with other people like them but sadly because of the left everyone is forced to coexist whether they like it or not, which is pretty bad for both fringe weirdos who want to do their own thing without being bothered or judged by others and the majority who is subjected to people who appear and behave in ways they find repulsive (to be clear I'm talking purely about aesthetic stuff, not objectively harmful behaviors like molesting children).
"I already stated that libertarians support having a choice in what people you live around and interact with (although some also believe in open borders which seems to be a cognitively dissonant position), you can self-segregate yourself from people you don't like."
I'm glad you mentioned open borders, because it seems like that's the cliff the Mr. Magoos of libertarianism are ultimately bound for. Again, I don't think it's necessary to play deep chess to see how civilization unravels when open borders is the rule. I would go as far as saying this person is totally blind.
But with regards to Hernandez, I think the blindness is even more dangerous, because the bad actors can appeal to our own (rightful) disgust at the Machine's demands to conform. We can be tricked into seeing the dragon as a mere "aesthethic choice", even when it's screaming otherwise.
For instance, check out Tiamat's leadoff statement in the following video:
"I want people to not like me! Because it means I'm not like you!"
My argument with libertarians isn't that they are wrong in principle, but that their prescriptions in the current environment are suicidal in practice. The libertarian might argue that this is just because reality hasn't yet conformed to his designs, or that "true libertarianism" hasn't yet been tried (i.e De La Boetie). But then again, communists argue along the same lines.
I think a major difference between communism and libertarianism is proof of concept, early America was significantly libertarian although probably not to an ideal degree. By any reasonable measure a whole lot of things worked better in the past before a giant centralized government developed, whereas every attempt to bring about communism has made things significantly worse.
A Supreme Court justice could not define what a woman is, but I'm sure defining a dragonoid would pose no problem. Does the "+" in LGBT+ cover dragons?
I've been told that + accounts for all serpents, frogmen and assorted lizard people, but has yet to cover werewolves and wendigos. When will justice finally prevail for the W's?
There is a place for this guy in a functioning society: in a circus sideshow, adults only, outside the city limits. There also can go the mad butchers that make these things, and all the Hollywood freaks with subtler perversions of form. Boundaries are what we forgot how to have, and they make all the difference.
Freak shows were socially sanctioned (and ritualized) voyeurism of the monstrous and deviant, keeping it on the edges and out of daily life. Limits were maintained. "Defining deviancy down" in human politics and society is the source of our current liberated freak show. After a certain threshold is passed, the normal is considered abnormal, and socially/politically unacceptable. AKA "weird".
Rob Henderson's luxury beliefs are involved here too. The people who condone and encourage deviancy generally do not have to live with it or its consequences in their faces. It's a freak show they can visit, gawk at, and think big thoughts about on their way home.
I don't think so. Freak shows have been around for a lot longer than public acceptance of derangement and degeneracy. In the best context this kind of beyond the pale strangeness shows the dark, to people who are willing to look, so they can better appreciate the light. Not everybody wants or needs this, and it only works if there's contrast, which you don't get if they're just mixed into everyday life.
I also think it's good when possible to provide constructive things for disturbed people to do, in way that minimizes broader harm. They can't be entirely eliminated, at least not without some method that is both presently unachievable and morally unconscionable. Assuming you believe that some people are born with these inclinations, and/or that whatever inflicts them is always going to be outside social control on the margins.
I think most, if not all, of our present problems are less about the existence of extremes - people, behaviors, circumstances - and more about abandoning boundaries. Containment is achievable in a distributed fashion in a way that elimination is not achievable in even the most totalitarian environment. But when you've got Karens and their telescopic philanthropy running amok, and you're letting the inmates run the asylum, you get containment of normalcy and attempts to eliminate it. Which is clearly poison for everyone but the freaks, and probably bad for them too.
Yeah, I agree with much of this. That's why I say I'm on the fence about it (and you've described one side of that fence well).
Actually, I might use this comment as a springboard to write about the subject more generally. I think of freak shows an early experiment in radical bio-libertrarianism, and I have a bit of a personal connection to one freak show in particular.
Make insane asylums great again!
For real, yo. Find a good Dungeon for this Dragon to occupy.
Thank you for describing for us what we are more and more frequently confronted with in society-- Seeing a 'dragon' causes, I suspect, a great jumble of emotions, and confusion. "Society" demands we accept the insanity before us, and that we be polite, and tolerant, while we are fundamentally repelled and instinctively want to protect any child within viewing distance. Is this really civilization? And what medical ethics apply here? ~ Ginger Breggin
The dollars seem to drive the "ethics" here, don't they? It's the slope from "can" to "should" as a rocket slide to Abaddon. Moral blindness as a market advantage. I might be rich by now if I took every shortcut of "can = should." But what would I face in the aftermath?
We have a plague of moral blindness providing market advantage. From the work done by highly educated human beings in bio laboratories. To the marketing and promotion of so-called vaccines to ethics departments to find every way to explain and justify killing other human beings, reborn aged, sick, helpless., to every kind of science that says what we can do with it? Let’s experiment and figure out how to make it pay…
And then what can it do? Control weather? Spit fire from the sky, transmit a disease, seize the mind of a person…. It seems we are trying to create the plagues of the Bible.
Thank you for a beautiful and thought provoking essay.
As an anarch, I am entirely with you. The mad scientists inflamed with the power of destruction, particularly those butchering children, have no place in civil society, nay, are arch criminals against the good, truth and beauty. Jail is too good for them. Hell beckons.
The libertarian, as I see it, makes no room for protecting society from predators. The anarch, as I see it, says everyone has a responsibility to protect society from predators. Far from the anarchic, we are currently ruled by predators.
Well put, Hunter.
Although I guess it begs the question: what is the meaning of "civil society" mean to anarch?
Most leftist anarchists act as though, if you destroy society, utopia will spring up spontaneously in it's place. Of course that is just a childish version of communist utopia, which of course only ever results in communists killing off anyone who doesn't bow before them. The true anarch recognizes, civil society has to be constructed and maintained, like the anarch self, in the macro as in the micro. Such a civil society would put paramount, personal responsibility, but also the anarch responsible to something greater than himself. Of course we are far from that, industrial modernity having an infantilizing effect, aging adolescents looking to technocracy to protect them, eschewing God or the self.
The first part of this article is a great summarization of how I think parenting should work (and what I try to do with my kids).
The second part made me want to vomit, though not because of the writing.
I don't understand how people can see "creatures" like that walking around and claim that stories of Christ's exorcisms are fantasies.
Thanks, John. I think the Veil is lifting on demons and possession at a rapid clip. Of course that isn't necessarily the explanation for everything we see happening, but the fact that people are reincorporating this possibility is a good sign.
Make exorcisms great again.
This "genderless dragon" represents more of the burgeoning propaganda designed to slow-walk us full-spectrum human beings into normalizing the bloodliner quasi-hybrids who are already here, clothed in human-like skin but truly of another species altogether. I mean, seriously, first it was "let's normalize trannies," and now this. I see the agenda on full display: They expect us to worship these things as idols, to give over our Creator-given power to them. I do not consent! Thanks for bringing this to our attention in your unique and creative way.
I thought tongue-piercings were pretty strange back in the 90's. Every time I met someone with one of those I thought, "You'll probably regret that choice someday." Now, they seem almost quaint.
Amen.
We are all part of a culture and civilization. Libertarian thinking degrades both. Tolerance is not a virtue.
John Zmirak at The Stream wrote a column a few months back that claimed that after the USSR's collapse, Russian leaders analyzed their.situation. and.concluded that the best way to rebuild and maintain a functioning society would be to center it on Christianity. They may not believe in it themselves, but they will nurture and protect the Christian faith. Sodomy is not making any inroads in Russia, and I suspect that a Russian dragon lady might meet an untimely end by tumbling off a building or down a stairwell.
This stands to reason. I am not at all sure, for instance, how seriously Putin takes his own Christian faith. But I am certain that he takes the concept of a renewed and revitalized Orthodox Russia very seriously.
There are many crimes against God, like hairless cats, but who am I to judge?
Wonder if human rights law applies to dragons? Hmmm.
Yes, this is something I thought about too. Of course, the current arbiters of "human rights" are currently on the dragon's side. Maybe that will change soon.
First of all: thank you for drawing attention to the creature. I would have preferred if it had remained out of my life, but I suppose that’s not a matter of choice.
Ignoring something is a damned comfortable thing. Yet, there are two paths to reaching that state... either laziness and a genuine disregard, or taking a rest. For the first, all I can say is that even God spits out the lukewarm. For the second... let the person rest. I was here too. It was good, peaceful. Then, after a while, someone hit me so hard that I had to say, "fuck, hell no!" I guess this post was meant for them.
Nevertheless, I have no idea what could have happened. He seemed like a perfectly normal guy. I agree that withdrawing attention seems to be the most effective approach. But I believe he could come back, even if there might be no return in several respects. He could even be the one who prevents such horrors, and I think that would be a good enough reason for forgiveness.
(And the doctors should be banned from practicing for life... and they should be thankful if they get off with just that.)
I believe anyone could come back. But I think in his case any kind of mundane solution is out of reach. He has transformed himself into a poisoned poisoner, and is having a blast drawing attention to his own self-destruction. This isn't the sort of madness that can be healed by human methods. But God has His own methods, so you never know.
I am a pretty anarco-libertarian libertarian. I am struggling with my thoughts on this one.
On the one hand, I agree with you that this is a f***ed-up mess of a person. I certainly agree that you have the right to shoot this being if it trespasses on your property. I certainly agree that business owners should shun such a weirdo (if for no other reason than simple practicality -- if this person is crazy enough to do this to itself, think of what else it might be crazy enough to do). Lastly, I absolutely agree that the doctors who indulged this are at serious moral fault.
Should any of this be actually ILLEGAL, however? Punishable by threat of violence?
Maybe. Maybe the doctors are guilty of mutilation in indulging the insane fantasies of this sick individual. But ... I also might argue that, if society were not making such a (top-down, from the demons themselves) effort to "normalize" this, we might just laugh at it and send it on its way.
I'm not sure. It's just that I am just as suspicious of that which smells like rightist authoritarianism as Leftist (though I certainly align with the right on a lot of key points at this time). I happen to love the iconography of dragons, though I'd never want to mutilate myself to BE one. Is the reverse-slippery-slope of this to make dragon iconography illegal by threat of violence? I'm not trying to be histrionic here; just asking a genuine question. Would that be the ideal in the eyes of the Christian right?
As a tangent, this extreme body modification obsession is growing in popularity. 15” of fame for some. I however see it as a manifestation of truly dark and satanic nature and or psychiatric illness. Attached is a pic of another extremely modified human before and after. I see the before pics and some are truly beautiful people. Very sad.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Mar%C3%ADa+Jos%C3%A9+Cristerna+Mexican+lawyer%2C+businesswoman%2C+activist+and+tattoo+artist&ia=images&iax=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fbodyartguru.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F12%2FMaria-Jose-Cristerna-5-e1639576919351.jpg
The extreme body mod phenomenon is indeed very sad and definitely is a mental illness IMO. I see it as another symptom of a deranged society that has zero interest in helping people to be comfortable in the bodies they were born into and every bit of interest in encouraging that mental illness that results from a body dysphoria that -- ironically enough -- is a byproduct of said society. FUBAR!
Noteworthy bit of happenstance. Today I posted a Note about a creature that possibly surpasses this monster.
I titled it "Everyone knows accounts of demon possession are just fear-mongering by superstitious Christians."
https://nypost.com/2024/08/23/us-news/inked-army-vet-esperance-fuerzina-with-forked-tongue-and-pierced-genitals-breaks-world-record-with-99-9-of-body-tattooed/
What's even weirder than Guinness having a "most-tattooed" category is that it's broken down to tenths of a percentile. Anyway, I guess this means people will start tattooing their spleens and livers next, and the winners will be declared by arthroscopic camera..
🤣 I came of age in the 1970s. I have a (1) tatoo on my forearm. Have long regretted it, considered having it removed or covered with a neutral, all black band. Ultimately I decided to just leave it, as a reminder to be humble and remember my stupidity.
I’ve lived in Germany for many years, and the tattooing phenomenon here is simply out of control. Young attractive women with both legs nearly covered, neck tattoos, face tattoos. Hopefully many of these young people will some day also become humble when their wearable artworks become blurred beyond recognition on their sagging wrinkled skin.
Legal freedom does not entail freedom from social consequences though, people always seem to strawman the libright position by ignoring that. You have a moral right to pay other people to give you disfiguring surgeries to look like a dragon or whatever if you want, but people are also perfectly in their right to not hire you or let you near their kids if they want. Realistically no matter how freakish someone is there will always be some people who are willing to tolerate it, but since you will pay a severe social penalty you will have to weigh the consequences of abnormal behavior before engaging in it.
"You have a moral right to pay other people to give you disfiguring surgeries to look like a dragon or whatever if you want, but people are also perfectly in their right to not hire you or let you near their kids if they want."
I understand this position, and I am not strawmanning it. But this "moral right" is where the waters always get muddy, and has a tendency to collapse on contact with reality.
Do I have a moral right to drive my car at any speed I want? In principle, maybe, but only if there were no possibility of collision with other cars or pedestrians or property. The same could be said of dragon-men. If they were cursed to prowl the forbidden wastes with other monsters, maybe that is its "moral right." But not when they're shopping for makeup at Walmart.
And that's to make no mention of the "moral right" of the surgeons to ply their trade on this guy, who is quite obviously insane (or something worse). This casual and profitable mutilation of human flesh carries with it deleterious and demoralizing network effects in the population at large, who will also come to see humans as a trivial object, to be experimented on for fun and profit. Threat assessment isn't just about what's currently staring you right in the face. But I don't think you need to play deep chess to see the dangers of transhuman "medicine" at play here.
I suppose that's the point of having different nations, people with contradicting values can have their own societies governed based on their preferences. Some places will have different speed limits or maybe no speed limit at all, and that's perfectly fine if it's based on the value preferences of the people living there. I already stated that libertarians support having a choice in what people you live around and interact with (although some also believe in open borders which seems to be a cognitively dissonant position), you can self-segregate yourself from people you don't like. This is basically what everyone except anarchists and globohomo types already support but I guess what makes libertarians different is wanting what are right now political processes to take place through privatized processes instead. I think the ideal for all identity groups is to mostly live with other people like them but sadly because of the left everyone is forced to coexist whether they like it or not, which is pretty bad for both fringe weirdos who want to do their own thing without being bothered or judged by others and the majority who is subjected to people who appear and behave in ways they find repulsive (to be clear I'm talking purely about aesthetic stuff, not objectively harmful behaviors like molesting children).
"I already stated that libertarians support having a choice in what people you live around and interact with (although some also believe in open borders which seems to be a cognitively dissonant position), you can self-segregate yourself from people you don't like."
I'm glad you mentioned open borders, because it seems like that's the cliff the Mr. Magoos of libertarianism are ultimately bound for. Again, I don't think it's necessary to play deep chess to see how civilization unravels when open borders is the rule. I would go as far as saying this person is totally blind.
But with regards to Hernandez, I think the blindness is even more dangerous, because the bad actors can appeal to our own (rightful) disgust at the Machine's demands to conform. We can be tricked into seeing the dragon as a mere "aesthethic choice", even when it's screaming otherwise.
For instance, check out Tiamat's leadoff statement in the following video:
https://youtu.be/BcJM15bmwd8?si=NDg0i3mXrlQVVrLj
"I want people to not like me! Because it means I'm not like you!"
My argument with libertarians isn't that they are wrong in principle, but that their prescriptions in the current environment are suicidal in practice. The libertarian might argue that this is just because reality hasn't yet conformed to his designs, or that "true libertarianism" hasn't yet been tried (i.e De La Boetie). But then again, communists argue along the same lines.
I think a major difference between communism and libertarianism is proof of concept, early America was significantly libertarian although probably not to an ideal degree. By any reasonable measure a whole lot of things worked better in the past before a giant centralized government developed, whereas every attempt to bring about communism has made things significantly worse.
Made me think about taking David Icke and his lizard people literally. Maybe he really was onto something.
A Supreme Court justice could not define what a woman is, but I'm sure defining a dragonoid would pose no problem. Does the "+" in LGBT+ cover dragons?
I've been told that + accounts for all serpents, frogmen and assorted lizard people, but has yet to cover werewolves and wendigos. When will justice finally prevail for the W's?
Nothing but bigotry, I tell you!
There is a place for this guy in a functioning society: in a circus sideshow, adults only, outside the city limits. There also can go the mad butchers that make these things, and all the Hollywood freaks with subtler perversions of form. Boundaries are what we forgot how to have, and they make all the difference.
I'm of two minds on this one. Maybe freak shows are what got us here in the first place?
Freak shows were socially sanctioned (and ritualized) voyeurism of the monstrous and deviant, keeping it on the edges and out of daily life. Limits were maintained. "Defining deviancy down" in human politics and society is the source of our current liberated freak show. After a certain threshold is passed, the normal is considered abnormal, and socially/politically unacceptable. AKA "weird".
Rob Henderson's luxury beliefs are involved here too. The people who condone and encourage deviancy generally do not have to live with it or its consequences in their faces. It's a freak show they can visit, gawk at, and think big thoughts about on their way home.
I don't think so. Freak shows have been around for a lot longer than public acceptance of derangement and degeneracy. In the best context this kind of beyond the pale strangeness shows the dark, to people who are willing to look, so they can better appreciate the light. Not everybody wants or needs this, and it only works if there's contrast, which you don't get if they're just mixed into everyday life.
I also think it's good when possible to provide constructive things for disturbed people to do, in way that minimizes broader harm. They can't be entirely eliminated, at least not without some method that is both presently unachievable and morally unconscionable. Assuming you believe that some people are born with these inclinations, and/or that whatever inflicts them is always going to be outside social control on the margins.
I think most, if not all, of our present problems are less about the existence of extremes - people, behaviors, circumstances - and more about abandoning boundaries. Containment is achievable in a distributed fashion in a way that elimination is not achievable in even the most totalitarian environment. But when you've got Karens and their telescopic philanthropy running amok, and you're letting the inmates run the asylum, you get containment of normalcy and attempts to eliminate it. Which is clearly poison for everyone but the freaks, and probably bad for them too.
Yeah, I agree with much of this. That's why I say I'm on the fence about it (and you've described one side of that fence well).
Actually, I might use this comment as a springboard to write about the subject more generally. I think of freak shows an early experiment in radical bio-libertrarianism, and I have a bit of a personal connection to one freak show in particular.
Please do, if you like. Sounds fun.