I think I can explain this bizarre-seeming phenomenon
Kamala Harris hosted some kind of event earlier today. Several mask-wearing (why?) women participated. As is now common in gatherings of liberals, they began the meeting by introducing themselves and stating their pronouns. And, weirdly, by describing themselves–their hair color, the dresses they were wearing, whatever. This might possibly make sense if it were a meeting of blind people, otherwise not. Utterly bizarre.
This tweet has a two short clips of the meeting:
Literally all of the guests at Kamala's event are introducing themselves by saying their pronouns and what they are wearing.
Wtf lol. pic.twitter.com/8WCCPaHetu
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 26, 2022
It doesn’t appear to make sense – unless you realize that the left now defines everything connected with personal identity (with the possible exception of race, and even that depends on the circumstances) as being determined by subjective perception and wishes. In other words, your self-described identity can trump reality because truth and reality are not determined objectively.
So if you are a man such as Lia Thomas and would like to be called “she,” so be it. If you are one person and would like to be called by a plural pronoun, so be it. If you are a member of a protected group and think someone has dissed you, that person has done so. If you have voluntary sex with someone and thereafter change your mind and decide you were somehow coerced, and then accuse that person of sexually assaulting you (and the accused person identifies as a man), then that person is guilty and can even be kicked out of college on the basis of your accusation, without any objective proof and even if the objective evidence (texts, for example) would otherwise tend to exonerate him. If someone – anyone – on the left takes offense at something you say, you better apologize to that person.
So if Kamala Harris is obviously a woman and everyone who isn’t colorblind or literally blind can see that she is wearing a blue suit, one cannot assume that it is obviously true. There is no truth except the subjective wishes of Kamala Harris concerning how she would like to be perceived by others. So if she decided to say that she’s wearing a yellow suit, so be it.
And if she was sitting there naked and claimed she had on a beautiful article of clothing…oh, well, I guess that story already has been written.
Now wait a second. That last sentence is hard to un-see.
Maybe there were blind or sight limited people in attendance.
If someone claimed one color or type of attire that they were not actually wearing would anyone contradict them or would people affirm xir psychosis?
By the way my pronouns are Sir/Yes Sir.
Further evidence of the democrat’s increasing disconnection from objective reality is to be welcomed.
Defining themselves by what they are wearing offers an opportunity to hoist them upon their petards. Come to work in a blue suit and declare it to be orange. Next time you wear the suit declare it to be red, then green, then silver… by their own dogma they have to accept it, while their eyes tell them another story. If any object, declare it an offensive infringement upon your personal identity… who are they to try to tell you who you are…
A rejection of objective reality renders them vulnerable to chaos.
And Willie Brown can certainly concur: that song has been written.
She’s still better than the new Supreme Court Justice. Kamala knows what a woman is and realizes that others would know without consulting a biologists.
As for a college man, you don’t have to have sex to be accused of sexual assault. You need only be accused of making unwanted advances. All that is necessary is the accusation. No interest on your part in the woman is necessary, only that you were in her presence.
Leland:
No, Kamala isn’t saying she knows what a woman is in general. She is saying that she herself is a woman, which the left says is a matter of self-definition and self-perception. She isn’t labeling anyone else a woman. They are free to call themselves what they want and define themselves to others that way.
I would add that this isn’t simply a disconnect from objective reality, or an effort to demand the rest of us “see” “their” reality.
This is without question the best trolling ever by those who have never been held accountable for their reprehensible behaviour. They’re just rubbing our noses in it now.
Start with Bill Clinton & work your way forward in time…Has the progressive hate-America crowd ever been held accountable? Absolutely not. And when real America got close to doing so…they unleashed hell against Donald Trump & the gates are still wide open & raging against him.
So now we have the 2 most incapable people ever acting as the US POTUS & VPOTUS & just for example…the 2 most ridiculous clown-shop trans-people in the public eye holding high responsible public office…even Big Freedia passes better than they. It’s the Nelson Muntz-Style bully standing over the beaten kid saying “Ha-Ha.”
This is the same song 652nd verse…It does not stop until they are stopped, held accountable, repaid in full & their gains become loss.
yes their indifference suggests how unaccountable they are, although even as a progressive, she doesn’t even really make an argument, it’s like cliff notes, that’s why staffers run away from her like the crew at pamplona,
I wonder what Brandon would have said if he had been among those present. Would he have been oriented enough to all 4 spheres (self, place, time, and situation) to make any sense at all?
well he couldn’t sniff her, so he probably couldn’t tell
Neo, none of what you claim makes logical sense. I know you think you are being Alice, but if I’m free to define woman as anything I want, then there is no definition. I suspect you mean that anybody can call themselves woman and I must call them that, which is what the egg man was doing to Alice.
maybe this is why they are so indifferent
https://t.me/RealSKeshel/5640
I saw this clip yesterday. I think there’s a possibly more banal, apolitical explanation:
I’ve been on Zoom meetings where some of the speakers and/or chair of the meeting who are present in person identify themselves by what they’re wearing. It was meant to clarify who is who to the people logging in remotely.
Zoom (or whatever platform) will only identify the group in person as ‘Conference Room’ or some such, or by the name of the person who’s laptop is being used. Moreover, the camera won’t necessarily be moved to each person in the room as the speak (probably not, in fact). Thus, remote participants might only see the people in the room in passing and at a distance/angle.
So if a remote participant has a question specifically for the guy in the green shirt, it’s helpful to know his name is Bob and the question can be directed to ‘Bob’.
Now, who can say for sure in this instance, or any instance involving a group of ultra woke? But I’d say the above explanation is at least the likely reason.
The notion of describing yourself is about letting those with various impairments know who you are by sharing a common definition that helps you identify them. When you get to decide that words mean only exactly what you mean them to say about you; then Kamala might as well say “I’m Kamala, my pronouns are Kamala, and I’m a Kamala in a Kamala Kamala at the head of the Kamala”, because all those words only mean her as she says so. You might suggest, but “blue dress” doesn’t refer to her. Oh? So blue dress has a common definition, but woman does not?
Honestly, when it comes to describing what one is wearing (in the context of a meeting or presentation), Ackler’s suggested explanation is the only one that makes sense to me. Otherwise, I truly don’t get it. Announcing one’s pronouns (as a signal of woke compliance) is one thing, but how does the clothing description support that? Still scratching my head.
Ackler’s explanation makes sense to me, particular since it’s hard to tell who’s talking, with masks blocking the face.
Leland:
My entire post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Perhaps that didn’t come across.
She’s the Kamala with a blue dress on?
Neo it definitely came across as you wanted it.
The Left wants you to believe their perception of reality is your reality
I thought the table was wearing the blue suit…
Neo, so was my first paragraph, but your initial response seemed to take it seriously.
My guess is that this got started because people were wearing masks and it was hard to see who is speaking. Another speculation was that with video conferencing, describing oneself and one’s clothing directed attendees to the right speaker, so you knew who was saying what.
Such self-description came to be seen as something done for blind or visually impaired people, something analogous to closed captions or sign language interpretation for the deaf or hard of hearing, but of course if you are blind, you don’t see the blue suit and if you are blind from birth, you may not even understand what “blue” means.
}}} I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit.”
The really funny part is that she had to look at herself to know what she was wearing. 😛
}}} By the way my pronouns are Sir/Yes Sir.
Indeed!
My pronouns are
“Liberals are assholes” and “Feminists are sexist pigs”
}}} then accuse that person of sexually assaulting you (and the accused person identifies as a man), then that person is guilty and can even be kicked out of college on the basis of your accusation, without any objective proof and even if the objective evidence (texts, for example) would otherwise tend to exonerate him. If someone – anyone – on the left takes offense at something you say, you better apologize to that person.
I honestly, truly want to see some college-aged guy reverse this, and accuse a girl of having raped him while he was drunk… and then sue the university for violating his civil rights when they attempt to blow it off, as they almost certainly will. As long as he said “No, stop” at any point during the engagement, she’s raping him by their standards. And even if he didn’t he was still drunk, and unable to provide rational consent.
}}} A rejection of objective reality renders them vulnerable to chaos.
But that is the objective — chaos.
All the better to Reset Everything, my dear boy…
}}} which is what the egg man was doing to Alice.
Pretty sure, Leland, that everyone here knows he was saying |
“I am the Walrus, goo goo a’joob”
😀
}}} I thought the table was wearing the blue suit…
No, it was the mannequin. Hmmm… “Womannequin”?
The Powerline post Neo quoted was updated later by Scott: “The White House has posted the text of Harris’s remarks here. She was speaking at a roundtable with disability advocates. I take it that the descriptions of attire were for those who could not see. Putting the personal pronoun shtick to one side, the weirdness of her remarks can really be seen in her observance of the abortion sacrament in this context.”
And his final sentence was amplified here:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/07/who-was-that-masked-woman.php
@ Neo > “There is no truth except the subjective wishes of Kamala Harris concerning how she would like to be perceived by others. So if she decided to say that she’s wearing a yellow suit, so be it.”
@ huxley – have you gotten around to watching Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew” yet? (I’m fond of the Burton-Taylor production; from Zeffirelli, of course.)
Why is that relevant to this post?
So glad you asked!
https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/the-taming-of-the-shrew/act-4-scene-5/