Dr. Rachel McKinnon / Dr. Veronica Ivy / Rhys McKinnon / Rachel Veronica McKinnon / Foxy Moxy / SportIsARight - failed out of a tenured job,man who competes in womens sports, gained like 100 lbs in 2022 (page 813), comically fell off bike before a race (page 830)

[Tragi-Chan]

He was totally correct in what he said, he just used the wrong word because the unwashed masses don't understand the philosophical meaning of "immoral". So, to clear things up -- he gives us a new word. There we go, problem solved.

View attachment 956332

Oh, thank goodness! He didn’t mean that not wanting to fuck him is immoral, just wrong and worthy of criticism! So glad he cleared that up, I was worried that he was a bigoted shitheel.

 

[Spastic Colon]

So, Rhys wants to know if he should do the Kirk Minihane show on Barstool Sports. I didn't know anything about them, so I googled.

NBC News story on Barstool Sports

The caption under the photo at the top of the article reads:

David Portnoy founded Barstool Sports in 2003. Since then, the company appears to be drifting away from its sports-centric roots to another focus: manliness.

I think the answer is a big, fat "YES". Would love, love to hear Rhys have a discussion with these guys. I don't think Rhys has the guts to do it, though. His block list is probably longer than his followers list on Twitter. There is no way he could handle someone not fawning over him in an interview.

 

[break these cuffs]

So, Rhys wants to know if he should do the Kirk Minihane show on Barstool Sports. I didn't know anything about them, so I googled.

NBC News story on Barstool Sports

The caption under the photo at the top of the article reads:


I think the answer is a big, fat "YES". Would love, love to hear Rhys have a discussion with these guys. I don't think Rhys has the guts to do it, though. His block list is probably longer than his followers list on Twitter. There is no way he could handle someone not fawning over him in an interview.

I remember watching an interview they did back like 5 or 10 years ago. It reminded me of shit like the Man Show and 90s/early 2000s over the top masculine humor type stuff. If they're still around I'm sure they have the dangerhair squad shrieking.

 

[Wallace]

View attachment 956123
Another poor argument. “I’m not advocating conversion therapy, because I personally define conversion therapy in this way, and what I’m advocating isn’t that.” He really should have spent more time studying philosophy and less time studying the pastry selection!

When a narcissist and reality come into conflict, it's reality that's wrong. To Rhys, anything short of immediate, fawning admiration is transphobic abuse. People disagreeing with him or criticizing him short-circuits his brain, so he blocks them.

Even more than Yaniv, this is the guy who is going to push people over the peak trans tipping point. His philosophy is so riddled with inconsistencies and nonsense that even the shield of troonery isn't enough to silence his critics.

 

[Lezbean]

“Suberogatory” is a jargon term never used outside of dry philosophy essays and even rarely used then. This is a pure narc move, throw out a rare word that almost no one has heard of and that no one outside of the field has a reason to know. Use that so the opponent has to stop debating and look up its meaning, throwing them off balance while giving the narc an opportunity to belittle their opponent, presenting them as having an inferior intelligence because they didn’t know the meaning of some random word.

To anyone familiar with this tactic, it’s what narcs do when they don’t have an actual rebuttal - they just shift a piece into place where they can attack the person. In reality, using jargon in debates is greatly frowned upon because no one should be expected to know the jargon for a field they don’t specialize in. It’s considered a dirty tactic used by cheaters and sore losers.

 

[heathercho]

When a narcissist and reality come into conflict, it's reality that's wrong. To Rhys, anything short of immediate, fawning admiration is transphobic abuse. People disagreeing with him or criticizing him short-circuits his brain, so he blocks them.

Even more than Yaniv, this is the guy who is going to push people over the peak trans tipping point. His philosophy is so riddled with inconsistencies and nonsense that even the shield of troonery isn't enough to silence his critics.

The problem with Rhys' argument is that Rhys is Rhysexual and the world is learning that they're exceptionally Rhysphobic.

 

[DarkWestern]

I just imagine, in the pantheon of snowflakkottry here, if fully grown athletic as fuck men can """compete""" in womens sports, then what happens in 100 15 years when we start pandering to the cringier niche snowflake groups like "Age(kin)" and allow them to compete in the little leagues?
Will we someday see fully grown men spiking footballs, and performing elaborate dance moves in the defeated crying faces of the children they defeated because they identify as an 8 year old?
I kinda hope so, but I also kinda wouldn't want to live on this planet any more. Thoughts?

 

[break these cuffs]

Will we someday see fully grown men spiking footballs, and performing elaborate dance moves in the defeated crying faces of the children they defeated because they identify as an 8 year old?
I kinda hope so, but I also kinda wouldn't want to live on this planet any more. Thoughts?

I'm fine with it as long as it's as funny as when Kramer took karate lessons with 9 year olds.

 

[kaien]

“Suberogatory” is a jargon term never used outside of dry philosophy essays and even rarely used then. This is a pure narc move, throw out a rare word that almost no one has heard of and that no one outside of the field has a reason to know.

As the old saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

And yes, the Barstool Sports shtick is deliberately exaggerated meathead bro shit. Sometimes it's self-aware enough to be funny, sometimes not. If they get Rhys to go on I'm guessing it would be memorable.

 

[August16]

More like subullshitgatory
There is no simple explanation of that word - as people said he used it to shut down debate. The proper thing to do is ask him to explain himself how the act is suberogatory. Then ask him regarding what morality, since it is relative and then watch the fireworks of him, though I'm not sure if he thinks it's relative. But then it hinges on the paragdigm that trans women are women and of you don't hold this paragdigm to be true it falls apart. And good luck proving this paragdigm true in reality.

This is the simplest explanation I found.

The missing category, attributable to Julia Driver, is suberogatory, meaning bad (or otherwise wrong) but not prohibited.

r/askphilosophy - Can an act be morally permissible but still morally wrong? Or are these mutually exclusive?

14 votes and 6 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

 

[sperginity]

So that creates a false equivalency in which your sexuality - which is immutable - is equivalent to racial preference in a partner. Racial preference may be due to racism, or more likely it may be due to factors like preferring a particular body type, or a personality type more favoured by a particular culture. General sexual preference of this nature is, in any case, more mutable. Rhys is plainly hoping to weaponise people’s fear of being labelled racist in favour of his own hate speech.

It is more of a problem than mutable vs immutable preference though, he is conflating aesthetic preferences with the body parts that are used to have sex. People don't rub their eye shapes or hair textures together to fuck, people can change racial preferences all they want and it is a really superficial difference to the act of fucking that people engage in.

What I want is for rhys to explain in great detail how exactly people are supposed to work through a complete lack of sexual response (with a person they otherwise like, which happens plenty when people are figuring out that they're gay). A lot of scientists have tried to find a way to create libido and physical arousal in humans, but Rhys seems to think that wokeness works better than viagra.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

More like subullshitgatory
There is no simple explanation of that word - as people said he used it to shut down debate. The proper thing to do is ask him to explain himself how the act is suberogatory. Then ask him regarding what morality, since it is relative and then watch the fireworks of him, though I'm not sure if he thinks it's relative. But then it hinges on the paragdigm that trans women are women and of you don't hold this paragdigm to be true it falls apart. And good luck proving this paragdigm true in reality.

This is the simplest explanation I found.

r/askphilosophy - Can an act be morally permissible but still morally wrong? Or are these mutually exclusive?

14 votes and 6 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

So basically immoral. He keeps playing autistic word games, but it all comes down to the same thing - you should feel bad about your sexuality. He’s like those racists who try to justify their hatred with pseudoscience.

 

[Wallace]

What I want is for rhys to explain in great detail how exactly people are supposed to work through a complete lack of sexual response (with a person they otherwise like, which happens plenty when people are figuring out that they're gay). A lot of scientists have tried to find a way to create libido and physical arousal in humans, but Rhys seems to think that wokeness works better than viagra.

It works for him, since he's aroused by his own sense of superiority.

 

[Spastic Colon]

So basically immoral. He keeps playing autistic word games, but it all comes down to the same thing - you should feel bad about your sexuality. He’s like those racists who try to justify their hatred with pseudoscience.

And he keeps claiming that he doesn't support conversion therapy -- but that is exactly what he supports. Asking someone to consider if they could change their sexual orientation is advocating for conversion. He thinks that sexual orientation is a choice we make and that we are making the immoral/wrong choice if we don't embrace pansexuality -- the only moral/right choice in his eyes. How is that not conversion therapy? LGB people fought for a long time to get people to realize that their sexual orientation is fixed and not a choice. He wants to throw all that out just to be able to argue that no one has the right to refuse to date a trans person.

He tries to dodge that label by saying that it isn't the same because heterosexuality is the norm and apparently it is only wrong/immoral to try to force people to be "normal". If you are pushing them away from the norm -- that is perfectly fine and not at all like converting them from homosexuality/bisexuality to heterosexuality. Nope. Completely different.

Kind of the same arguments people use when they claim that only white folks can be racist. If the majority group does it -- it is bad. If a minority group does it -- totally okay.

 

[break these cuffs]

If the majority group does it -- it is bad. If a minority group does it -- totally okay.

That is the base principle for modern progressive academic theories. It's shocking it took Rhys so long to start expounding it.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

And he keeps claiming that he doesn't support conversion therapy -- but that is exactly what he supports. Asking someone to consider if they could change their sexual orientation is advocating for conversion. He thinks that sexual orientation is a choice we make and that we are making the immoral/wrong choice if we don't embrace pansexuality -- the only moral/right choice in his eyes. How is that not conversion therapy? LGB people fought for a long time to get people to realize that their sexual orientation is fixed and not a choice. He wants to throw all that out just to be able to argue that no one has the right to refuse to date a trans person.

He tries to dodge that label by saying that it isn't the same because heterosexuality is the norm and apparently it is only wrong/immoral to try to force people to be "normal". If you are pushing them away from the norm -- that is perfectly fine and not at all like converting them from homosexuality/bisexuality to heterosexuality. Nope. Completely different.

Kind of the same arguments people use when they claim that only white folks can be racist. If the majority group does it -- it is bad. If a minority group does it -- totally okay.

I can actually think of a better “it’s not conversion therapy” argument, but I want to see if Rhys can figure it out.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

And he keeps claiming that he doesn't support conversion therapy -- but that is exactly what he supports. Asking someone to consider if they could change their sexual orientation is advocating for conversion. He thinks that sexual orientation is a choice we make and that we are making the immoral/wrong choice if we don't embrace pansexuality -- the only moral/right choice in his eyes. How is that not conversion therapy? LGB people fought for a long time to get people to realize that their sexual orientation is fixed and not a choice. He wants to throw all that out just to be able to argue that no one has the right to refuse to date a trans person.

He tries to dodge that label by saying that it isn't the same because heterosexuality is the norm and apparently it is only wrong/immoral to try to force people to be "normal". If you are pushing them away from the norm -- that is perfectly fine and not at all like converting them from homosexuality/bisexuality to heterosexuality. Nope. Completely different.

Kind of the same arguments people use when they claim that only white folks can be racist. If the majority group does it -- it is bad. If a minority group does it -- totally okay.

I wonder if it's ok if Christians think homosexuality isn't immoral, but instead come up with some other term that doesn't quite mean the same thing in a theoretical context known only to people who've studied theology for a while. Would their conversion therapy stop being conversion therapy if we just got rid of the word immoral and replaced it with a new one?

The best part is, going by the way genderites have used "sex" and "gender," once people accept the new terminology, we can collapse it back into the old one and they mean the same thing again, once I get everyone to agree with how I think the new category should work. As Rhys argues more and more, I realize that the thing that makes him such a peak transer is how clearly self-serving he is.

The middle-class moms who are at the forefront of his opposition are more believable to almost anyone: they're not telling other people they have to be sexually interested. They're not trying to win other people's competitions. If they're concerned for anyone, it's for kids who are getting their hard-won sports scholarships taken away by cheaters. Most people don't see it as helicopter parenting or selfish for parents to intervene on behalf of their kid, when something clearly extremely unfair is going on.

The blindness to how self-serving he appears is why Rhys is on the same level as Yaniv for peak transing normies. A lot of our other trans cows really hedge on some of these issues, or only talk about their real views in private channels. Rhys isn't afraid to say what he thinks, even when what he thinks is that it's immoral not to consider sleeping with him.

 

[Spastic Colon]

Rhys just posted some passage of some scholar who has argued the same point to show that he wasn't the first to say this. No shit, Rhys -- we know you don't actually have any novel philosophical ideas. Still doesn't mean that you are correct. It means that there are 2 philosophers who don't understand normal human sexuality because they've had no firsthand experience with it.

He now says he is "taking apologies". Any takers? So far, he hasn't received one. I wouldn't hold his breath if I were him.

It is ironic really that he wants people to reconsider their own sexual preferences when he isn't even capable of considering that he might be wrong on something. He is so certain he is absolutely correct in every circumstance, yet people are incapable of being certain about a hard wired biological drive.

Forget firing Rhys. They should fire the fucking idiots who hired him and then decided to double down on the stupid and gave him tenure. That is a massive level of incompetence that needs to be addressed.

 

[break these cuffs]

Rhys just posted some passage of some scholar who has argued the same point to show that he wasn't the first to say this. No shit, Rhys -- we know you don't actually have any novel philosophical ideas. Still doesn't mean that you are correct. It means that there are 2 philosophers who don't understand normal human sexuality because they've had no firsthand experience with it.

He now says he is "taking apologies". Any takers? So far, he hasn't received one. I wouldn't hold his breath if I were him.

It is ironic really that he wants people to reconsider their own sexual preferences when he isn't even capable of considering that he might be wrong on something. He is so certain he is absolutely correct in every circumstance, yet people are incapable of being certain about a hard wired biological drive.

Forget firing Rhys. They should fire the fucking idiots who hired him and then decided to double down on the stupid and gave him tenure. That is a massive level of incompetence that needs to be addressed.

He can just go to any incel board and find tons of other retards who believe like he does. It doesn't mean they don't all deserve to be gassed.

 

[Otterly]

He was totally correct in what he said, he just used the wrong word because the unwashed masses don't understand the philosophical meaning of "immoral". So, to clear things up -- he gives us a new word. There we go, problem solved.

“That would be an ecumenical matter...”