Why do people cluster around ridiculous ideas?
Some thought-spaghetti for you. My toilet is God’s telephone, potatoes are chocolate.
Why do people love to cluster around outlandish propositions? Why are we basing laws on this new premise that changing the meanings of words alters material reality, when we can plainly observe that it does not?
This morning I realized my toilet bowl is a direct conduit to God. By some weird cosmic accident, I can hear the voice of God whispering from my toilet, like holding a shell to your ear at the beach. If I can get two or three other people to believe me, will more join in?
Anyone who questions the prophecies of my toilet bowl is an intolerant bigot. I can start collecting money from true believers, and this is starting to sound like a good idea.
This is normal behavior for our species. A way to organize into angry clusters so we can throw rocks at the other guys. I guess that serves an important function (?) or at least satisfies our apparent need to socially stratify.
But what I DON’T get is why the central unifying thing is always a ludicrous idea. The more ludicrous and impossible to prove, the better. A man in the sky, an innate sense of “gender”.
Why don’t people unify and get this angry about things that can actually be observed? Imagine if all the plumbers and electricians unions waged bloody war against each other because one group spent a lot of time observing water flowing through pipes and the other group observes electricity flowing through wires.
Is it because things that can be actually observed are harder to argue about? People can argue endlessly about what God said, because nobody can actually see him or get him on the phone to issue an official statement. But we can all use objective measures to observe material reality, so at some point there is not much to argue about. Right?
But wait, what about the female penis? What was before known as the male reproductive organ, a thing that can be observed, can now be argued about, because someone decided that renaming objects alters reality, even though it clearly does not.
A man who puts on a dress becomes a woman, not because material reality has changed, but because we can reassign the meaning of words. So a woman can now be anyone who says they’re a woman. Or a chair. A chair could be a woman because we can simply change the meaning of woman to: Adult human female, or anyone who has an internal sense of being a woman, and furniture designed for sitting on.
Therefore, if I take the wrapper off a chocolate bar and wrap it around a potato, the potato is now a chocolate bar. I actually tried this experiment at home and it worked.
You know what sounds like? It reminds me of a conversation I would have with myself in my head if I smoked too much pot after sneaking out of gym class in 9th grade.
It’s alarming that world governments are making laws based on this kind of mental gobbledygook. I feel like I’m barely stupid enough to even know how to explain what is happening, because it is SO STUPID. I’m giving myself a headache.
This is why I usually stick to drawing.
Maybe I’ll make a bumper sticker that says “Changing the names of things does not alter material reality” because that seems to be the crux of the thing.
Like I can’t believe we actually have to spell this out, but people are using shit like this to diagnose children as transgender, remember the whole strawberry pop-tart argument?