This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The "I'm actually very confident and inevitable!!" insistence rings a bit hollow when the only thing you end up actually expressing is the same set of stock excuses every guilty man craps out to talk others out of punishing him. "W-wait, they're coming for you next!!" isn't a convincing case when some weakman bluehairs use it to justify freeing convicted rapists to prevent repressive capitalist state apparatus from destroying the global working class, and it's even less convincing from a "guy" who doesn't even have enough balls to directly defend those perversions he loudly pretends to believe aren't a big deal. You're not "bold," you're a basic degenerate e-begging for just enough reluctant validation to avoid the (entirely correct) conclusion that he must soon apply millstone to neck, and that you have to do it by fearmongering the board into adopting a position of political and organizational impotence, before the fear that their enemies might possibly challenge them to control some expression of political power, should make that much plain. I doubt that big spiel about "le moralism" must be a big comfort to someone who spends his life running like a roach to hide under the fridge whenever someone turns the lights on, but I guess I really can't expect much better; after all, being a pathetic manipulator is the evergreen face of noncery.
In your heart, you know it's right.
Yeah unfortunately I'm in agreement with the moderator below (rare for me) that I don't really know much what to make of your rant other than that you are very mad. But I will say this:
It just hasn't come up in this limited scope conversation (that happened to be what I responded to) yet (as I really only made one simple, small inquiry and it is only my penchant for tangents as mentioned previously which naturally opened up other avenues of discussion), but if you want the full scope of my opinion I will tell you: I believe that the feminine should exist somewhere in a state between wardship and sexual (and otherwise) chattel slavery/property in relation to the masculine. This view naturally accommodates little in the way of valuing modern "consent", much less an age of it, same as the government doesn't/can't (rightfully) tell you that your TV has to be X number of years old before you can watch it, hence explaining my expressed views thus far.
(I do separately believe in the righteousness, correctness, mental healthiness, and beauty of the appreciation of the young female form as a natural masculine birthright, that it is superior to its opposite (that is, I am still an avowed pedo/hebephile, etc. as well as previously claimed), but this post is already long and as my opinion that there are no just grounds for prohibiting something tautologically explains a lack of support for its prohibition, I will save the promotion/exaltation of it for another time.)
(And as a separate disclaimer given some obvious but incorrect implications that might be derived from the above, of course I am not (from my perspective) a monster and just as I don't believe anyone should arbitrarily destroy/damage their TV or especially, for example, their dogs (for no reason anyway) who I do recognize as sentient beings with feelings, I grant the same consideration to sentient feminine entities (so long as they are in a state of behavioral correctness, just as you can put your dog down or at least whack them for uncontrollably biting people), but that still doesn't change the nature of them as fundamentally justly subservient and thus rightfully subject to a broad latitude of control by their owning/possessing entity. (And yes for the record I think women and girls would be on balance much happier in this hypothetical society.))
That is, I am certainly no "NOMAP" or "virtuous pedophile" or any such nonsense (though I have tactically abstained from most that is illegal in this area throughout my life, recognizing sadly that this is unfortunately not a time period conducive to the true, proper, and full expression of masculinity with the little consequence it deserves) and certainly had no intention of representing myself as such.
To enforce the above (among other common desires on the far right wishlist, like certain racial hygiene initiatives, eugenics, etc.), I believe that a strong, fascist-esque (that is, probably a bit more organized, a bit more bureaucratic and technocratic under the hood, lots of marching and paeans to vigor and masculinity still, great aesthetics you know, but better planning to ensure it all lasts, a bit of Disneyland magic at times except for higher purposes (just to address preemptively the most sensible/common criticism of fascism as a whole that it inevitably burns itself out in its ardent fervor)) society should be constituted. I like to call this "pedofascism" as it is a catchy, provocative name that gets people talking, though I haven't posted online much about it yet as I post online a lot less than I used to in general.
From my perspective, none of this is the shady, seedy underbelly of society that can only be excused through feeble pleas to left-wing "tolerance" (as you seem to be implying I believe) or "Yeah but they'll come for you next!" (though these are true arguments to a degree and thus permissible for use in many circumstances) but rather the natural and inevitable state of a truly fully masculine society at full power (which is not to say that such a society is inevitable). Its opponents, in my view, are those who are the degenerates and enemies of masculinity, as well meaning as many of them are in regards to thinking themselves the opposite.
To me, the creepy, unnerving connotations of "noncery" intuitively far more apply to those who would deny themselves a vigorous expression of their natural sexual desire for the young, fresh, and unblemished (as almost every proper man should inevitably prefer or at least strongly desire to some degree per basic evolutionary logic) because of what is essentially a campaign of feminist subversion. (Age of consent law campaigning was basically the first act of modern feminism, even before the "earning" the vote or prohibition.) That is, to me you are the ones scurrying "under the fridge" like "roach[es]" (in even more pitiable/contemptible fear of your own inner "light").
So no, I am not a "guilty man" in regards to my preferences/bluntness in embracing them in this area. I am ashamed, but primarily only of the weakness of my fellow men in regards to not joining me as is their birthright, would they have the will to enforce it. (My appeal against "moralism" is only an appeal against what is to me only false, hysterical, and feminine moralism. To appeal to a genuinely higher justice is no crime.)
(To be clear, the endorsement of the enjoyment of feminine varieties of any age as a natural masculine right would in fact actually be only a small (though essential, as you can't and obviously don't have a fully, properly patriarchal society in its absence (even discounting how it already acted as a canary in the coalmine on the subject the first(?) time as previously mentioned), same as you don't really have TV freedom if you can only watch older TVs) part of the character of my ideal society. Any seeming emphasis on it now is only because it is nevertheless a heavy controversy now, same as heliocentrism was once a heavily controversial position that required hard-won acceptance, even though, as unthinkably to its opponents then as it is now to people like you that the acceptance of age freedom for masculine sexuality wouldn't be that big of a deal, it's not that big of a deal for us, something we fully endorse based on clear logic and observation but not something that we worship/emphasize unduly.
That is, we are not really a heliocentrist society despite accepting heliocentrism fully and without reservation and mine would not necessarily be a pedophilic/etc. society per se (depending on how enduring the "pedofascist" label is) despite accepting it similarly (or rather dismantling the flawed (mostly feminist, progressive, etc., even if they disguise or deny that nature) ideological lenses that I believe could only ever be used as the grounds to mandate its prohibition, thus leaving no justification), just in case you try the usual gambit of insisting that my apparent "obsession" with the subject must nevertheless reveal some inherent and disqualifying flaw in my psychology. It is only because this is a society of (knowingly or not) feminism-influenced "geocentrists" that I must debate or think about the issue at all; in an ideal society the proper nature of things would already be in place and there would be little more reason to consider it than the tides: purely for the impractical joy of thought if at all.)
So, with that all established, you must understand that, assuming you're somewhat more on the right since you called me a "basic degenerate", from my perspective the "basic [and clearly media/Cathedral-brainwashed on this subject, at least in my view] degenerate" here is you, that you are aligned with the bluehairs (at least about this subject) that you are so worried about (or so you believe, carrying their water here as you are), etc. (In case you maybe thought you would somehow intimidate me with your austere hard line on degeneracy, millstones around necks, tough guy South Park suicide clip stuff? I want the same; your agecuckoldry (used as non-derisively as possible) is just to me included in that realm of "degeneracy", on the same level and part of the same phenomenon as the general intolerable feminization of men and society.)
Or, more succinctly, this tweet pair gets at similar ideas: https://twitter.com/Burgerpunk2077/status/1556021799011307520
For further elaboration of a similar viewpoint (as it is a somewhat novel one and thus I will assume that more examples for familiarization are uniquely helpful for the reader's understanding of it), see this /pol/ classic from ~2017 or so: https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1508/05/1508054159980.png (Obviously this little manifesto was not written to conform to the etiquette this board so click at your own risk; it is provided merely as an illustrative artifact of digital anthropology.)
Is this enough "balls" for you then in regards to being very clear about what I endorse? I can elaborate more. It just requires some groundwork since (again, reading this into your post, could be wrong), you seem to be assuming that I'm somewhere to the left of you, when, from my perspective, I am in fact far to the right of you. You are, at least in many ways, my globalist, modernist, progressive bogeyman (especially as your kind is so often completely convinced that you have fully aligned yourself against them, you are in a way more unacceptable to me).
This all of course strays far from the original subject of this subthread, but you accused me of the impropriety/dishonor of being indirect/subversive about my beliefs (which must be considered permissible as a tactical necessity at the least among enemies or other risks to one's freedom, but I won't classify a mostly open intellectual venue as such at the moment), so an infodump
"no, u mad" followed by 1.6 thousand words are quite good evidence I hit my mark and a nerve.
Millstone.
I realize it may be pointless to reply while you're banned, but I have to ask what the heck "millstone" is supposed to refer to, because you've used it here the same way 4Channers say "dilate" to transwomen.
Matthew 18:6 or Mark 9:42 or Luke 17:2, which each say about the same thing. Paraphrasing, "better to tie a millstone around your neck, and be cast into the deepest sea, than to lead a child into sin." In context, it's not specific to pedophilia, more of a general injunction against corrupting innocence in children, but pedophilia is generally considered the extreme case of a violation against this stricture.
Huh. I'd picked up that it was a "kill yourself", but I didn't notice the Bible reference. Thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do not be deliberately antagonistic, this was right after another mod warning. 5 day ban.
More options
Context Copy link
You accused me of being indirect about my beliefs, I explained them in great detail (certainly not because you "struck a nerve" as in fact I've had this all on the tip of my digital tongue for a while and you gave me a good excuse to let it all out, though you obviously aren't worthy of its debut), and your response is nothing more than mindless, simplistic Reddit-style snark. Unless you wish to reform your behavior in a less (cattily and frivolously, not even embodying their occasional virtues) feminine direction, this is the part where I dismiss you as a man and move on. You may have permission to address me again as a fellow man (assuming you identify as one) when you have developed a proper intellectual backbone.
Edit:
His original post was:
His latest edit is obviously a response to a suggestion of the opposite. In any case:
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whose nerve has thus been struck. Hopefully if anybody sees it some will enjoy my response to him regardless, as its length is a reflection of my desire to communicate the material, not to address such a generically discontented individual (who I've naturally encountered some close variation of probably hundreds of times prior).
As I ironically enough mentioned in my initial response to him:
Cattiness, passive aggressiveness, and an incapability of enduring direct challenge without ragequitting (and of course inevitably doing a modern faux-indifferent/casual "But I'm not mad! I'm not owned! You are!" routine along the way) are all of course included in this. I think I hit the nail on the head.
Edit 2:
And shall we add irresoluteness and indecision? As they say: "lmao."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For whatever reason despite being under the character limit my post appears to be cut off to me. In any case the last line is:
(If I had known this would happen despite heavy editing to bring it under the character limit I would have made the above a two-parter anyway so please do excuse any space-saving measures such as the overuse of conjunction via forward slash and the generally less varied diction.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is pure namecalling.
I gave the OP some slack for taking an unpopular (to put it mildly) position, and I'll give his critics some slack because it's obviously an extremely emotive topic, but you still don't have a license to ignore the rules and be as antagonistic as you want just because you really hate what someone is expressing.
No, it's not pure namecalling, I pointed to a specific substantive and conduct problem with OP while namecalling him: It's one thing if some honest ignorant person really doesn't get that pedophilia is wrong, it's another if the main thrust of a person's post (history, based on some comments on another thread) amounts to flaunting his pedophilia and making vague allusions to auxiliary issues for plausible deniability. I don't plan to revisit this issue outside of complaints to staff, but it's extremely hard to understand why you think namecalling is the problem next to that.
Well, next time leave the namecalling out.
Because we don't allow namecalling. You are allowed to criticize people's behavior and beliefs. You are not allowed to personally insult them. Yes, that even applies to pedophiles, Nazis, tankies, wokes, Bills fans, and whoever else you hate the most with a pure and righteous hate. If you cannot engage without personal attacks, do not engage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link