I’d say it’s too late to be “becoming” anything…

Two links I saw right next to each other, with no apparent ironic intent…

From the Los Angeles Times: Chelsea Manning, who served 7 years in prison for handing U.S. secrets to WikiLeaks, to be featured in Vogue, sources say

Please tell me he’s not going to be on the cover in a bustier*. Please.

From Fabius Maximus: America is becoming weird. Here are some recent examples. [Ed: fascinating read.]

It is absolutely too late for America to “become” weird. Weirder, maybe. But I’m no longer convinced that’s a good thing. I think maybe we should aim at ‘having achieved peak weird, we’re shoving the pendulum in the other direction. We’ve amended the constitution to forbid actors, reality show hosts and former presidents’ spouses from running for president. We’re bringing back gray flannel suits.’

Yeah. I’m old. I don’t recognize that place out there anymore, and sometimes it’s more alarming than entertaining. In case you didn’t know, Chelsea Manning is a (trigger alert)

Chelsea Manning is a guy.


*And yeah, I’ll go with the standard NTTAWWT disclaimer but didn’t people already do the obligatory “she’s so brave” thing with Bruce Jenner? Because he’s a guy, too. I’m old enough to remember when he won a bunch of Olympic medals and at least tried to come across as a really manly guy. And if now he wants to prance around in lacy undies and makeup, that’s none of my business. But I don’t feel obligated to watch, or to pretend it’s an improvement. That’s all I’m saying.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to I’d say it’s too late to be “becoming” anything…

  1. jed says:

    The weird has always been here. It’s just that it’s now celebrated, rather than kept under wraps. There’s an extent to which this is due to the internet, but that’s not the whole story. Even without it, society has been moving towards a more permissive attitude in re. personal behaviors. In fact, as you say, the pendulum has swung too far out there, as it now seems to be de riguer to not just come out and and say, “I’m {label}”, but to also demand attention and validation of it. I don’t care what Bradley chooses to do with his life, but I’m not interested in hearing about it, or paying for it. Similarly, yeah, don’t expect everyone to cheer your entrance into the locker room of your identification. Your right to pursue your “happiness” ends when it creates a burden upon others.

    I doubt we’ll ever get to a point of universal simple “live and let live” tolerance. That damned pendulum will just keep swinging.

  2. Judy says:

    “Your right to pursue your “happiness” ends when it creates a burden upon others.”

    That statement right there is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And why shouting “Fire” in a crowded building is not a First Amendment Right.

  3. Ben says:

    Let’s not bring back the grey flannel suit please. However, am I the only person who thought that leisure suits actually made sense? (That is, they made sense for those folks who are actually obligated to wear suits.)

  4. jed says:

    I had an uncle who had a leisure suit, so there are at least 2 of you. In it’s defense, I think it’s better than the RompHim: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/106904571/the-romphimtm-your-new-favorite-summer-outfit

  5. Bear says:

    “I think it’s better than the RompHim”

    You masculnity is clearly too fragile. [grin]

  6. Joel says:

    “[A]m I the only person who thought that leisure suits actually made sense?”

    I must confess I never thought leisure suits made the slightest bit of sense, but I wouldn’t actually forbid them if I were king. Romphims, maybe. 🙂

  7. Bear says:

    I never really cared about leisure suits one way or the other. But back then I was known for always wearing jeans. But then I was to attend a semiformal event (in DC, believe it or not) and folks were waiting to see what I showed up in.

    Three-piece denim suit.

  8. Kentucky says:

    “Your right to pursue your “happiness” ends when it creates a burden upon others.”

    Not only creates a burden, but DEMANDS acknowledgement, acceptance, and special treatment based upon the degree of your uniqueness; the further you deviate from the prevailing societal norm, the more you expect from that society in entitlement for bearing the burden of societal dismissal.

  9. MamaLiberty says:

    It would most certainly be good… almost an imperative – to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater if the building was actually on fire! One may not morally or legally do so if there is NO fire, of course. A distinction too many seem to forget. The first makes one a hero, and the second makes one a criminal. Quite a difference.

    But why do people get away with forcing others to support their departure from whatever social norms may be around? How can they “demand” anything except being left alone? Seems to me that these “demands” are mostly paper tigers. Why should I give a fig what they say, do, want or “demand.”

    I don’t see why their behavior would be any of my business. Oh, on my property, of course, but on theirs they can do anything they want.

    So, the problem seems to me to be “public property.” Including the snowflake and terrorist “social media” like flakebook. Thank goodness the latter is easily avoided.

  10. feralfae says:

    I think that what some people may be missing in all of this is that we are witnessing what may be an example of extreme psychological brainwashing and extended periods of trauma literally disintegrating the identity and personality of a human named Danny Manning, and having that identity rebuilt on the destroyed foundations of the psyche in such a way that the human’s identity can be imposed from external forces. Even unto sex change surgeries and adopted identity.

    To some extent, we may be witnessing the ultimate in the practice of mind-shifting that is imposed on victims every day in government indoctrination centers such as government schools, other prisons, and many types of government institutions.

    I writ this just to provide another take on the kidnapping, torture, transformation, and re-introduction of one human into society. Sort of an embellishment of the old manchurian candidate story.

  11. Kentucky says:

    “But why do people get away with forcing others to support their departure from whatever social norms may be around?”

    Because the “inclusiveness” branch of the progressive/liberal media makes such a big deal about it that the rest of the snowflakes fall into line.

  12. S says:

    Chelsea Manning is a hero. Chelsea Manning was the whistleblower responsible for one of the most important journalistic archives in history. She was motivated by conscience, after getting fooled at the tender age of 20 to fight in the Iraq War, she learned of hard evidence of war crimes, indiscriminate slaughter, complicity with high-level official corruption, and systematic deceit of the public.

    She knowingly risked her own liberty to disclose documents to the world that would reveal the truth, with no expectation of benefit to herself. She spent 7 years of her life being tortured as a consequence.

    Read Glenn Greenwald’s complete story, he knows her personally.

    What Jenner does is personal business, it doesn’t concern me. What Chelsea Manning did made us all a little bit more free, and for that solid I will happily address her in any manner she desires. She earned that token of respect and much, much more.

  13. MamaLiberty says:

    Good for whistleblowers. I’m all for it, and hope there are many more.

    Unfortunately, Manning is a guy. If “he” wanted to be a “she,” he needed to pay for his own sex change. Take up a collection and repay the US taxpayers, please.

  14. Joel says:

    Even not knowing the facts for sure, as I don’t, I’m inclined to agree with you that Manning is a hero. I certainly don’t condemn his actions, as some (who claim to love liberty) do. And to his face I guess I’d use whichever pronoun he prefers, but none of that is to the point of the post. I don’t certainly know the merits of what he did, because I don’t *know* everything he did. I don’t know everything that was in that info dump, and so I’m not entitled to an opinion about it.

    I merely assert that he is in fact a guy. A confused, mutilated, hormone-addled guy perhaps, but still a guy. He can have all the kudos he wants from me, but he can’t have his own facts.

  15. Kentucky says:

    “I merely assert that he is in fact a guy. A confused, mutilated, hormone-addled guy perhaps, but still a guy.”

    Yup. Still got all those nasty “Y” chromosomes. Call me when that changes.

To the stake with the heretic!