thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
I have spent my entire adult life, and even before that, with the knowledge that if I ever spoke my true political/social views I would instantly torpedo my entire career and social standing forever.
...
You stomped on us for 20+ fucking years, did you never think what would happen when we became the shoe? You deserve everything bad that is happening to you; you will deserve the much worse things that are still to come.
Do you think you deserved this treatment? The left's long march and resulting political/social power was itself a reaction to decades of similar suppression after all. Is your goal to doom us to cycles of repression?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
I worry that most visitors here would be far more strongly repulsed.
It might be good to take a moment to consider why TheMotte even exists before demanding more charity for progressives around here. This website is by my count the third exile for those of us with views that are widely seen, primarily by progressives, as repulsive. I think it behooves you to explicitly address that history before making such an argument yet again.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Then they belong in the Special Olympics with all the other carve-outs.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
I think it is less that the accusations came from outsiders and more that those outsiders were just using the accusations to discredit her arguments via ad hominem.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
That is the status quo they are fighting against though. In their ideal world, "flaunting sexuality" wouldn't make you appear as a sexual object to other people unless you intend it to. The fact that it does today is seen as a problem and rather than putting the onus on women/children to not flaunt their sexuality, they prefer to put the onus on the men/pedophiles to not perceive them doing so as sexual.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
At some point you have to discriminate.
Why? We should just put everyone, including women, in a single open category and be done with it. Nicely solves all the problems.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Orgasms are only sexual because they can result in gamete mixing. If you remove that, what's to differentiate them from any other form of physical activity? Why should they be considered special?
Sure, and once the euphoria of realizing your kid isn't going to die wears off, you'll be a good parent and start worrying about the next set of risks facing them--namely me. Hence the "Thanks, now gtfo." Helping kids almost always ends up being a net negative for my mental health, to which your response would almost certainly be "not my problem".
EDIT: Also, on a more humorous note, is it even physically possible to give CPR to a person "while slapping them in the face with a flaccid cock"? The flexibility required seems inhuman to me...
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
One cannot taboo the phrase "sexual act", as it is entwined with the phrase "sexual orientation". If we limit the definition of "sexual orientation" to non-reproductive acts, why should "sexual orientation" be treated specially as a protected category?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Hanlon's razor begs to differ. It seems much more likely to me that they didn't even realize they were publicly insulting their core customers until it was too late.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
I'm pretty confident most people expect me to avoid relationships, if not interactions altogether, with people I'm attracted to.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
The solution to this problem is obvious
Abortion.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
No other paraphilia is exercised in front of children and lauded by politicians
Female exhibitionism, and female power fetishes in general. Feminists have convinced the western world that it is sexist to not let them exercise their fetishes.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Organizations often have privileges beyond those granted to individual members. Why should we be able to grant such privileges to organizations but not set restrictions on them?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
True, but "minor attracted person" originated in academia in people studying pedophilia specifically because the distinction you mentioned had broken down to the point of being unusable. The progressive movement adopting the term is merely the inevitable progression to it too losing its distinction. I don't know that it is possible to ever maintain the distinction since the topic holds so much power over people's emotions.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
I don't begrudge you that position. But similarly, I see no reason to care about people being intolerant of you--supporting your group is not something I can afford. Hence my original comment.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3d ago
what I will never understand is how huge numbers of women were convinced by it.
What's so hard to understand? The promise of sex is something women can use to exploit men. Many women wanted to be able to more freely exploit men in this way without realizing men would also be more free to exploit them in return.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
How is this evidence that Wikipedia is ideologically captured? It seems like a rather banal description of terminology with little editorialization. Is there something in particular about the article beyond its mere existence that makes you think otherwise?
In contrast, the 'Same-sex marriage' section of the 'Christian views on marriage' article seems more like evidence of ideological capture than the article you linked, as the listing out of individual denominations that recognize same-sex marriage while grouping opposition is pretty clearly an editorial decision to make the former seem more popular than the latter.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
Drug legalization only requires “your body, your choice.”
Not always--see second-hand smoke.
Under the common understanding of consent, CP legalization requires taking that choice away from someone else.
Depends on how the CP was created. Drawn CP doesn't for instance.
Break out what you mean by "sexual act," because it seems obvious to me that there are lots of "sexual acts" that are not procreation
I'm not trying to restrict "sexual acts" to only those that involve procreation though. I'm asking why procreative acts, which I believe should be central to the category, have been so thoroughly excised from it by others. What makes intercourse so important that it should completely push out everything else, and even that it should be expanded to cover things beyond PiV intercourse? To my eyes, the only plausible answer is that the people who did so are guilty of using self-motivated reasoning to gerrymander the definition to ensure they can have their cake and eat it too.
Find a different way to describe it, and you'll have an answer to your question.
No, I really won't. My confusion stems precisely from the definition of the category sexual because we consider sexual things to be special. Sexual assault is considered a worse offence than plain assault. Sexual harassment is considered a worse offence than plain harassment. Sexual orientation is similarly a legally protected category in much of the West. Somehow I'm displaying sexual entitlement by looking at a woman who chose to dress provocatively, but a woman isn't when she claims a right to be impregnated by people she's "not sexually attracted to" though? What kind of backwards definition is that?
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or misunderstanding me, so I'll clarify why I said 'Hence Cuties'. The behavior of the girls in the movie is intended as part of an exploration and critique of women's experiences. Critics of the film argue that the movie is morally bad because of how the girls are portrayed while supporters argue there is nothing wrong with the movie itself and that it is instead viewers (eg, "pedophiles") who interpret it in a titillating context who are morally in the wrong. That is, women should be free to make a movie about their experiences without men coming along and sexualizing it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
I'm referring to arguments such as the one made by Mark Greene in this article that homophobia prevents platonic physical intimacy between men.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
What about that is an upside for someone who hasn't committed a crime and doesn't intend to?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
It amuses me how many people still think there's support in the LGBT community to normalize pedophilia, given that community used to be significantly more supportive of pedophilia and has been backpedaling on it for decades. What they want to normalize is child sexuality, not creepy adults exploiting it. It's no different than the feminist argument against modesty: women [children] should be free to do what they want without men [pedophiles] sexualizing them for it. Hence Cuties.
More options
Context Copy link