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 -
Haven't seen a thread yet on the gay bar shooting last weekend so I figured I would start it.
Sticking to facts in this post, opinion will go in reply.
The shooter killed 5 and injured 25
The shooter is a 22 year old, Anderson Lee Aldrich
The shooter previously was charged after he threatened his mother with homemade explosives and kidnapped her, but the charges were dropped
The shooter is the grandson of a prominent local Republican
The shooter was stopped by a drag queen combat veteran, who used his high heels to stomp him
Now for the opinion:
I believe that speech is powerful. Words are a means we use to convince other minds of beliefs about the world. Minds act upon those beliefs.
At present, there is a powerful right wing-meme that many people, some LGBT and some not, mostly democrats, are attempting to sexually confuse children for nefarious purposes. This is often described as "grooming" in order to equivocate with sexual abuse children.
Insofar as the reasonable man's reaction to a co-ordinated effort to sexually abuse children is not "I should vote about this and if I get outvoted, I should allow my children to be sexually abused", the actions of the shooter are completely predictable.
You should take care to think about the consequences of the speech you use. If someone were to be persuaded by your argument, what would that cause them to do?
You aren't reponsible for every nutcase or moron on your team. But you are responsible for the logical consequence of your ideas. I know of no society that believes they should be having free and open debates and votes about whether teachers should be permitted to sexually abuse children. If you really believe this, you should act the same as if they proposed legalizing Cannabalism. There is no debate with barbarians, only the sword.
Andrew Anglin (AA) at the Dailystormer agrees with you.
Why is the onus on the people upset about child sex abuse to watch their speech and not those who condone the CSA?
AA makes the point that the club where that shooting happened:
-was advertising a drag story hour for children in the same premises
Obviously that kind of coincidence is upsetting for a certain segment of the population.
The logical consequence of the widespread conflation of 1 the 'gay lifestyle' ie orgies with strangers in semi-public locations (see pride) and 2
outreach with children leads to a natural association :
'these perverts are really keen to 'educate' [my] children into their so-called lifestyle, and I don't see this as an optimal situation as I do not want [my] children to grow up with trauma, sexual infections, unnatural behaviors etc'
Aside from ramping up the police state, what is the MSM community's solution to marginal non-MSM anger?
More options
Context Copy link
Well, it would help me to moderate if the meme wasn't so true.
You think it's true that there is a coordinated effort by millions of gay adults and teachers and community-leaders to manipulate children into acting trans and gay and then have sex with them? Obviously "the meme" could refer to a broad range of stuff - but I think that's the gist of it. That seems very outlandish to me. Do you have any evidence?
Yes. My evidence is that they freak out whenever people notice them doing said things and have tried to prevent the passage of transparency legislation. Have covered up actual rapes in their schools, and also that teacher have one of, if not the highest, child sex rates of any profession.
More options
Context Copy link
How else can I respond to this besides yes_chad.jpg? You want to make it far-fetched, to make it absurd, but there's nothing so absurd you could suggest that I wouldn't entertain as true, based on my experience and what I've seen in my life. I could fudge a bit on the edges, but they are coordinated, they want to make as many children gay and trans as possible, and they do it through suggestion, social pressure, and grooming.
I used to believe that live and let live was the right way to be. That what two adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is nobody's business. And then I watched those ideas slide down the slippery slope, replaced by trans women are women (they aren't), trans rights are human rights (they aren't) and that children should be allowed and encouraged to explore transsexuality (they shouldn't). I spent my charity already, and I'm not allotting any more to this group. They are evil, wrongheaded, and causing harm to individuals and to society.
More options
Context Copy link
@anti_dan's low effort comment was, indeed, low effort--to the point where it might have drawn moderation if it were more directly antagonistic or uncharitable or somesuch. I don't think it quite rises to the level of calling for a wrist slap, but on a different day, maybe it would.
But you uncharitably characterizing a position on which someone else was insufficiently specific does not improve matters at all. Especially when you acknowledge that there is a broad range of interpretations, here. Picking the most outrageous, least plausible version of that and then asking for evidence has some very "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of energy. Please don't do this.
My comment was not low effort, it was accurate. If you think I am incorrect, I suggest a cheese wakeup, After that sleeep.
Yes, it was. You left entirely too much to the imagination of your readers.
It's not about whether I think you're incorrect. It's about whether you put sufficient effort into being understood. I gave you the benefit of the doubt (and moderated someone who did not) and so did not moderate you. But given your low-key antagonism here: consider yourself officially warned.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I find the moderation hat here putting me in a difficult position since you incorrectly claim I uncharitably characterized it with my question, but 4 other people are replying to my question, "Yes, absolutely that is what influential gay people are doing" albeit sometimes in smaller numbers. It seems I'm not allowed to discuss the non-conspiracy side of this issue earnestly.
No, on review I was definitely correct.
Yep, you can definitely reply to them about what they have said. That would not be uncharitable. This was.
Sure, but an important hinge of this discussion is what 'people' in 'society' are broadly doing. I think all of the posters here practice as minimal sexual engagement/discussion/fondling of children as possible - but when I'm replying to someone who says something broad like 'The memes are turning out to be correct' without being specific as to which ones, I'm required to take a bit of a leap if my comment is to be something other than "Please post some clear sources so that I may engage with what you said." I even flagged this in my first comment here: https://i.imgur.com/AlT6s4m.png
If you're "required to take a bit of a leap" you'll often be better off just not. If you decide to take that leap anyway, then you need to come with the most charitable and steelmanned take you can muster. If someone else in the thread is giving a worse take, then take it up with them.
Really this a good illustration of why we have the rules that we have, and why in general the best approach to rule-breakers is to not respond to them. The comment you responded to really needed more, but taking "a bit of a leap" instead of just asking for more was actually a worse violation of the rules than the low effort comment itself. These things have a way of spiraling rather quickly out of control--one person keeps to the letter of the law, but violates the spirit, the next person crosses the bright line, but only slightly, this makes someone else feel like they are being good community police by slapping them down... and pretty soon we're 15 comments deep into a snarky back-and-forth.
Remember that the goal here is to engage with the best ideas of people with whom you disagree. If someone says something genuinely bad, there's a certain extent to which the mod team will interpret that as offering their own shady thinking up for examination and critique! But when you take it on yourself to impute a certain view to others, you need to do better than you managed this time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I barely have an opinion on this, particularly about millions or coordinated efforts. However, I'm a big believer in object permanence, which reasonable polite debate eschews and instead demands evidence of the object being visible right now. A group is not even on par with a two-year old individual.
We know that NAMBLA still exists, albeit a shadow of its prime; it was bigger in the past, when the afterglow of sexual revolution still inspired unreasonable hopes for the slipperiness of the slope in all sorts of people.
We know that a number of French intellectuals who have played an enormous part in shaping Western culture, and particularly its academics, «teachers and community leaders» part, have been defenders of legality of sex with what we consider to be minors, and particularly with boys.
The greatest among them, in fact the most cited academic in history, probably sexually abused prepubescent Tunisian boys. His arguments for drawing the line on 13 years can be read here.
(To be clear: in principle, I agree with Foucault there that, regardless of orientation, the obsession with fixed age as a Schelling point, to the complete dismissal of particulars of the case, is indefensible idiocy and the prime example of High Modernist approach to disciplining the society. Conservatives are beyond hope if they believe that high age of consent is «trad» or pride themselves on upholding muh rules and red lines. It's the same issue as their preoccupation with counting and recounting votes and «illegal immigrants»; coping strategy of simpletons cheated out of their inheritance and myopically tracing lines of the fundamentally hostile contract, hoping to find some gotcha, a technical defect in wording. But that's beside the point).
NAMBLA counted among its members the lauded poet and activist Allen Ginsberg, whose Howl was so fruitfully used as a starting point by our dear Scott in his iconic Meditations on Moloch:
NAMBLA quotes proudly:
Another poem by Ginsberg, Sweet Boy, Gimme Yer Ass, you can read yourself.
There are many cases of actual, no-equivocation grooming perpetrated by politically salient «allies», and I remember at least two cases where people got off to the idea of persuading boys to take the pink pill. (Some Catboy Ranch on Discord? I don't collect this stuff). Long ago I was also acquainted, hilariously enough, with a very left-wing, very active,«community leader» type gay psychiatrist, obsessed with assholes and dominating femboys, who tried to groom me and a number of my friends and younger people I looked after on the internet. (The main result of his actions was an uptick in pervasive Russian antisemitism). This suggests to me that it is not so rare.
My point is that those movements were/are a tip of the iceberg, made of the most vocal and irrationally daring proponents of the view that fundamentally arises out of rather widespread sexual preferences. Generally people who have those preferences can figure out good positions to preach and help legitimize them without explicit coordination, evil cackling and so on.
On top of that, teenagers are horny. Gay teenagers too, desperately so; you can see people with really wild bios popping left and... left in political debates, and most aren't trolls or LARPers. For one who has been repressed as a teenager, it would not be unthinkable to empathize with that and perceive further relaxation of sexual mores as helping those kids find happiness; don't you think?
Alternative sexualities are trivial distortions of the default reproductive drive, and combinations thereof; deformations of self-identifying and target patterns. Young, prepubescent boys are attractive to a subset of adult men precisely because they are men with a relatively feminine appearance and psyche (this has been acknowledged throughout history, codified in temporary names and dresses and attitudes – from the most benign and non-sexual, like Japanese boys wearing female-styled kimono, to the most explicit practices like bacha bazi). It is an inevitable inference, available to Thai peasants and American doctors alike, that blocking puberty and initiating HRT will preserve and augment those desirable traits.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If there are incentives for a thing to exist and to stay hidden, means to stay hidden, and past hints of its existence, then it may well exist to this day, and indeed may well have grown.
More options
Context Copy link
Certainly not. There's a coordinated effort by a very small number to do this. Think of them as the inner party.
There's an outer party - larger in number - who are happy to get positions of petty power where they push ideologically compliant stories and occasionally hide truthful information that might harm the party. Think: all the journalists/content moderators happy to hide what Kiwifarms/libsoftiktok/NY Post want to reveal, regardless of it's truth. As another example, consider the case of Loudon County covering up a rape because it was done by a transwoman, or the police covering up hundreds of rapes in the UK.
Most of these folks would certainly never rape children. But even if a few leftist drag queens do want to rape children, it's an isolated incident and it's best to cover it up to avoid getting conservatives elected.
And there's a much larger group of folks who believe whatever MSNBC and the NYT tells them, and also believe that if it isn't on MSNBC it didn't happen. These folks can be forgiven for not noticing the small correction the NYT made that Trump supporters never killed anyone on Jan 6, or the line casually buried in the 8'th paragraph that hate crimes the police solve in NYC almost never fit the stereotype of a right wing white guy. If it were important, it'd be on the front page, right?
This one isn't really a good example for the anti-trans side, is it?
The two students involved were fuck buddies and had met for liaisons several times in the school bathroom. At the time of the incident, they were meeting up, but the girl was intending to cut things off. This doesn't seem like the typical example people think of, when they think of the dangers of transwomen in women's bathrooms. Like, are women seriously scared that they'll arrange a meeting with a long-time, trans sexual partner in the bathroom, and that partner will react badly to them ending things and assault them in the bathroom? No, the fear is always that a stranger will assault them, and there's still very little evidence that this happens often enough to warrant the fear people have of it.
I thought there was also confusion as to whether the attacker was actually trans, or merely a GNC boy. Regardless of that, at the time didn't the school not have policies in place allowing trans students to use their preferred bathrooms? So, if lack of such policies is supposed to protect women, this case would tend to be a bad argument in favor of it.
Obviously, the school shouldn't have tried to cover the incident up. But that is sort of separate to whether it actually supports the anti-trans side.
Recall that I'm responding to this:
The point here is that the millions don't want to have sex with children but will participate in the cover up of child rapes anyway, at various levels.
At most thousands, probably less: people who actually want gay sex with trans children and will act on this.
Hundreds of thousands: Administrators/teachers/community-leaders/"journalists" who will cover up the rapes, or if they are publicized minimize them and make it socially and economically perilous to advocate for stopping them. These are the Loudon county school board folks who use violence against the father of a rape victim and directly cover things up. They are also the reddit/twitter mods who suppress the story, and the journalists who dowplay it when they grudgingly cover it.
Millions: regular folks who pay not very close attention to NYT/MSNBC and are happy to attribute politically inconvenient facts to Russian misinformation or whatever.
Perhaps Loudon county schools should have made that case instead of using violence (perpetrated by police) against the father of a crime victim.
I think the cover ups are a more general phenomenon. There's a reason why LGBT-friendly school districts and the Catholic church react in similar ways to a sex scandal - and a lot of it comes down to power and prestige, and the desire to maintain it. I agree this is a bad thing - all crimes should be aired and given sunlight, but there will always be incentives for institutions, especially highly respected ones in our society, to cover something up.
Our media environment is hardly ideal, but I do appreciate that thanks to tribalism, something like Fox News can occasionally report true negative things about one side of the political aisle. They did report on the story of Loudon, and I think that is a good thing, especially with the father being covered up and spoken over. The only issue is that because of that same tribalism, many people will never read a Fox News article about a bathroom scare and think about the implications of it, and those that do will come to entirely the wrong conclusions.
I agree. I in no way condone Loudon county schools for their actions. I wish they hadn't done the cover up, and I wish they had policies that would have prevented the boy from going on to assault a second victim.
I also don't think the story, as covered up, is actually a good match for the fears people have of transwomen in bathrooms. If people want to use the Loudon case to speak against censorship, then they go with my blessing. If they want to use it as a case for why tranwomen shouldn't use their preferred bathrooms, then it is a huge reach, in my opinion.
I do not disagree with this. Though I will suggest there is one big difference - the Catholic church hadn't developed the memeplex to get ordinary churchgoers to ignore it as "Protestant misinformation" or whatever. Unlike modern leftists, they were pretty horrified.
I used it as an example of how you can have a very small number of gay tranny pedos but a much larger number of people involved in the conspiracy to cover up their actions. I believe the old time feminists characterized this as "rape culture".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And what about the second girl in a different school this gender-fluid kid assaulted? Were they fuck buddies too?
The amount of justification going on to protect the fuckwits on the school board is amazing. Victim-blaming the girl, blaming everyone except the activist group that exerted pressure on the school board to introduce such policies.
Hey, it was Trans Day of Remembrance recently when the list of "look at all the trans people who got murdered!" is regularly produced. By your logic, it was all their own fault for being murdered, yes? I mean, if a lot of them were sex workers or had fuck buddies, yeah? "Arranging meetings with long-term sexual partners" is their own fault!
Don't project opinions onto me. I already said that the school acted in an irresponsible way. I agree that schools with better policies would not have had a second or third victim after this.
I don't really blame the girl for what happened. Obviously, the moment she ended their relationship, the assailant should have accepted it with grace and left her alone. However, I also don't think it is advisable for teenage girls to have sex with guys in school bathrooms, and while "he might take it badly when you end things" isn't the first item on my list of reasons why, it could certainly serve as one pragmatic reason why.
Again, you assume too much of me. I don't victim blame, but I do accept pragmatically (not morally) that trans sex workers being at higher risk of being murdered is not the same thing as trans people in general being at higher risk of being murdered. I would prefer no one get murdered, period. But if people in risky professions get murdered, it is probably a sign that we should arrange society in such a way that either people don't feel compelled to go into those risky professions, or we limit the harm as far as possible of people entering those risky professions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Kids also aren't supposed to be fucking in the school bathroom in the first place. An example of a boy lying about being trans to gain sexual access to women-only areas is not exactly a glowing endorsement.
It has been a while since I've looked at the case in depth, but I don't believe that the boy was lying about anything of the sort, and certainly not just to get into the bathroom for consensual sexual encounters. He was just gender non-conforming and wearing a skirt. The skirt did not grant him access to the bathroom, since the school did not have policies allowing children to use their preferred toilet at the time. It was just two stupid kids engaging in risky behavior, until one of them took a rejection particularly badly.
I agree that ideally, schools should not be turning a blind eye to students having sex in the school bathroom, but I think this probably happens more often then most people expect, and in the vast majority it involves a boy and a girl with no pretense on either one's part of being GNC or trans. They're just blatantly breaking the rules.
This is... a little more complicated than it sounds at first glance: see the second half of this post
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why does it have to be millions, when our institutions seem to be shaped by determined minorities, and why do they have to be gay, if a lot this ideology is peddled by straight/cis people? The second point is my immediate issue with the "groomer is an anti-LGBT slur" - it doesn't actually target LGBT people.
More options
Context Copy link
Look up "Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher tik tok teens breast removal 'yeet the teat'"
Then look up "Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher malpractice rotted tissue"
I won't post images.
That name is actually Sadhbh, not Sidhbh.
Very nice old Irish name, pronounced "sive".
This bitch seems to be mangling the name, as well as all the teenagers and young women she's surgically mangling. It should be "Sadbh", pronounced "Sive", but this is how she spells it.
Seemingly she's from Louth, so she should know how to spell it, but maybe this is on her parents. Nominative determinism? "I have a fucked-up version of my name, now I can give you a fucked-up version of your body!"
Oh right, I didn't realise that was the spelling she's using herself. That's totally, totally stupid if it's actually legally spelt that way; Sadhbh is already a name you need to know how to pronounce, so why bother chsnging the vowel and not the cluster of consonants at the end? Maybe to avoid having the letters S - A - D in her name?
But if I were anglicising that name I'd just spell it "Sive".
Does that rhyme with "dive" or "give"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have no doubt that a for-profit plastic surgeon has an attempted viral marketing campaign called yeet the teat, but I googled that (in a private tab) and the first result is her saying that gender surgery isn't the same for everybody and some people won't ever need or want it: https://tiktok.com/@gendersurgeon/video/7168239778415103278?is_from_webapp=v1&item_id=7168239778415103278
Is this an example of a coordinated effort by millions of gay adults and teachers and community-leaders to manipulate children into acting trans and gay and then have sex with them or just a questionable surgeon profiteering off a trend?
The rotted tissue hysteria is similarly underwhelming: https://lolcow.farm/snow/res/1703905.html (first google result again)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What a monumentally cynical take by you. First off, do you have any solid evidence of the specific motives of the shooter? Please recall the coverage of the Pulse nightclub shooting, which received massive and nonstop worldwide news coverage as the sine qua nom of anti-gay hate crimes. Well, it turns out that, as @Iconochasm notes below, the Pulse shooting had absolutely nothing to do with gay people, and the shooter literally picked it at random after he arrived at his planned target, the Disney entertainment complex in Orlando, realized that the security was too strong and that he stood no chance, and then searched “Orlando night clubs” in Google Maps and went to the closest one. We know this for a fact because it all came out in the trial of his widow. Still, to this day, Pulse is such a load-bearing part of the narrative that LGBT+ advocates continue to wield it totemically, either genuinely unaware of the truth or calculating in their dishonesty.
So, I think I’ll wait to render any judgment of the shooting (other than, of course, to unequivocally condemn it and its perpetrator) and hold off on assigning any blame to anybody.
That’s not even touching the obvious double standard which countless other commenters are noting, wherein catastrophizing about the perpetual threat posed by the very public existence of right-wing speech - let alone right-wing policies or actions - is routine, constant, and amplified daily and hourly by the most powerful people in the world. I don’t need or expect you to apologize for any of that - you have, as far as I’m aware, no power nor any significant public platform beyond this forum - but I find it profoundly cringeworthy that you would stoop to something like this.
More options
Context Copy link
It is! I wish paedophiles and their defenders would stop hiding behind me and mine to defend their horrendous ways. Trying to pretend that attacking groomers is attacking me is what is conflating us, not anything else.
It's like the meme of the archetypal progressive pointing at a picture of a Tokien orc and saying to a black person "Look! Aren't you offended by this depiction of you?!" and the black person responding "You think that looks like me...?" It reveals a lot more about the speaker than anything else.
Having a [possibly exaggerated or wrong] model of what a racist/queerphobe thinks in one's mind is not the same as being one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Its done primarily by pedos and gays and trans advocates themselves. It would be simple to tone back the gay pederasty and "hatching eggs" (and of course the pedos themselves have always tried, largely successfully) to incorporate themselves into the gay community. One of the sales pitches of gay marriage was this would normalize gays and create a schism between these communities, instead the opposite happened.
I can just as well say that the conflation of whites and racists is done primarily by whites, racists and white racists themselves. I suspect I would even find a few people here who would eagerly act as a case in point.
There is a massive gulf between the treatment of white supremacists by the white community and the treatment of pedos and pedas by the homosexual community. In the latter they are widely accepted and even celebrated (see, e.g. George Takei and Milo Yiabopolis descriptions of their first sexual acts).
There's definitely a discussion to be had about how the gay community seems to often accept things that we would not tolerate if they were homosexual, but it seems like the median gay wants no interaction with children(before puberty) in any way, whether sexual or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People do in fact conflate whites with racism because a prominent subset of whites openly and vociferously pushed racism for quite some time, and a smaller subset continue to do so to this day. If someone were to claim that white racism against blacks and other people of color was still an issue that needed to be addressed, would you disagree?
More options
Context Copy link
That would be true, because the conflation is pushed primarily by self-hating white leftists. The self-hating racist is often the boldest of racists, because they feel that, as part of the target group, they have more authority to speak ill of the target and they feel the urge to do it in order to set themselves apart from the hated group.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it? To consider whites inherently racist codes more anti-racist to me. White anti-racist, but anti-racist nonetheless.
No, I mean in the sense of "those whites are acting racist and racists are acting in favor of whites, therefore conflating the labels" like the parent comment said about gay/trans people and pedos.
The accurate parallel would be if someone condemned "These Nazis marching in Skokie", and every Republican threw a fit about "this bigoted attack on all white people". At that point, it is more than fair to say "My dude, you are the one conflating Nazis and white people."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm curious, do you think that the whole "Desmond is amazing" ketamine thing has anything to do with sex? Like do you see it as kids playing around? Because as a gay dude it seems obvious to me that he's non-figuratively being groomed by adult men, and iirc the CPS investigation backed that impression up. Yet corporations sponsor this stuff, and YouTube just deletes the incriminating videos and everyone pretends it didn't happen.
Telling people they can't point this out just seems wrong when doing this to kids is literally the thing they have issues with.
That is incredibly naive, and if it is truly your interpretation, there's very little common ground in which to have this kind of conversation.
He's 11, being showered with praise and money for pretending to be an adult, dancing sexually. It's fucked up, it's obviously fucked up, and the most fucked up part is not that it's happening, but that it's being celebrated. I can understand how people would do this to a child. I can't understand other people celebrating it. Or in your case, downplaying.
More options
Context Copy link
TIL that it's normal for young boys to pretend to be female rock stars and dance in front of adults in a gay club. Well how Science Marches On since I was that age!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To clarify, you are saying that if the right-wing accusation of LGBT+ grooming children is truthful, then you personally support the shooter?
It means the LGBT+ community is trying to influence children to join their sexual culture. Do you think this is happening?
So this is not "grooming" in your mind???? Conservatives would consider cultural influence "setting them on the course" to join that community as grooming their children. If you've set a child on the course of sexual development, the grooming is done.
They need to believe this because the justification for tolerance and rights is based on the born-this-way defense. That defense isn't true, of course, but it was damn useful and it has not yet been fully discarded.
Watch, though, as it gets discarded because if you're born that way, then there are biological markers saying so, which contradicts the self-identification campagin.
More options
Context Copy link
It is grooming, though, isn't it?
More options
Context Copy link
It is abusive to set children on the course of heavily self-destructive and dysgenic behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
This is not how most LGBT activists (particularly T) act. They behave as a population that knows it will go extinct without the ability to hard indoctrinate children out of the view of parents.
More options
Context Copy link
To the extent that this is a real phenomenon, I think It's more about missionary work. Teaching kids grammar is boring. Inspiring a heart-felt coming out story is dramatic. From what I see of conservatives, they are much more concerned with "totally not straight" white women with danger hair than any actual gay men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't get why you would go on rampage against cannibals with your AR-15 when you could beat them at the ballot box and have the police do it for you. If you're saying that we should immediately resort to violence against any sufficiently outrageous political movement, without even trying to resolve it peacefully, that's coming from you. Nobody else is saying that.
The call to violence makes it strongly resemble a tactic I have seen often before: "I dare you to bite this bullet. If you don't, you're a hypocrite who should be ignored, and if you do, you're a monster who should be destroyed."
I don't approve of that tactic for two reasons: for one, I have seen it backfire in a "be careful what you wish for" way. For two, it does not seem conducive to "arguing to understand." I recommend against using it, particular if one isn't actually in a position to destroy the provoked monster.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Especially nowadays, words are in massive superabundance. Unless you are someone with a public following - and even then - the idea that any one statement, out of millions, is dispositive of an individual's actions, strains credulity.
It is also described as "grooming" because it is seen, in its own terms, as a dangerous hijacking and corruption of children's development towards au courant notions and sexed identities. There is evidence for this claim.
No, you have not drawn a nexus between this particular bar and efforts aimed at children; or between the shooter and the "groomer" meme.
All you have on that point is that the shooter is the grandson of a Republican politician. This, in itself, tells us very little, because it is not uncommon for the descendants of major GOP figures to vocally repudiate, or distance themselves from their politically-active kin. In fact, it's a meme that every brooklyn hipster has to deal with "conservative family" on Thanksgiving.
Nor does there appear any evidence (at this time) that the shooter himself was politically radicalized (though that could change). What information we do have suggests the shooter was, in fact, generally violent (e.g. the threats against parents with home-made bombs and guns, with sufficient severity that the parents had the dude arrested). Of course this could change, and if and when new information comes out I will update my assessment accordingly. But right now, there is no link other than supposition and weak inference-drawing.
This proves too much. No speech could survive a standard requiring that not even a mentally-deranged individual threatening their own parents with bombings could interpret any particular statement so as to encourage violence.
Even if this standard were workable, which it is not, I would reject it because it is only ever applied unidirectionally. Only traditionalist or conservative speech is ever to be muzzled; the entire industries built on the left about pathologizing and demonizing conservatives, whites, and men are to be left alone. For example: no-one suppresses the speech of Ibram X. Kendi, Ta-Nahesi Coates, or thinks about reining in the legion of diversocrats who make a profession out of demonizing "whiteness," when radicalized black racialists kill white people, or torture white people, or assault random white people because they are white.
I would gladly stand with you if you said "we should all condemn these unprovoked murders." I would even be on your side if you had referenced the Idaho pastor cited in OP's link who apparently called for drag queens to be put to death. I would still be with you if you were proselytizing this sub's decorum rules, which would foreclose most use of the 3-edgy-5-me "day of the rope," "free helicopter ride," and other memes which do play around with and cheapen actual lethal political violence. But that's not where you're standing, which seems a bit telling to me.
The French did, and within living memory. And it may not be specifically teachers doing it, but, well, uh, the sexual use of children does happen in some cultures today. The question of when "childhood" ends, and what special privileges are to be accorded children is not inviolate throughout time and space, and has been answered many different ways, changing over time in response to material circumstances and cultural shifts. It evokes especially high emotions for many contemporary Americans, but that's not a cross-cultural universal.
More options
Context Copy link
Does this apply to singing "we're coming for your kids"? Or "Republicans are trying to destroy democracy and impose fascism"? You'd shoot Baby Hitler, right, so why not the supporters of Cheeto Hitler?
It always seems like the only people who need to be "held responsible for their words" are those saying things that you don't like (or make you feel guilty).
Naturally you're going to talk about this one for as long as you can get away with.
More options
Context Copy link
This is an interesting argument that was notably and conspicuously completely absent (along with claims or any awareness of "stochastic terrorism") during the "punch a nazi" fervor.
I disagree with the stance PMCM is taking here, and I agree that this stance was conspicuously absent during many excesses of the left. However, in fairness to PMCM, it must be pointed out that he himself may argue the exact same thing against those cases as well. Just because the left in general seems to have been hypocritical in the way you indicate doesn't mean that PMCM specifically was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm gonna deny this.
I mean, I also object to its premises: I don't think you've got sufficient evidence for his motivations (yet! maybe you're guessing right, but you're guessing), and I don't think you cared about examples with opposing valence like the Dayton Shooter (which turned out to not be motivated by his left-wing politics or the demographics of the bar he targeted), or the planned attack on Kavanaugh. I don't think you'd accept the same games with any of the 'inevitable' consequences of police deescalation. I don't think you'd suddenly stop blaming people if they merely said that people advocating the availability of Gender Neutral in school libraries were merely violating the boundaries of parents. And I can demonstrate that you're not going to limit this object to the specific matter of sexuality, but also to immigration.
But more deeply, same as last time: no. The theory that someone is responsible for the bad actions of a crazed actor taking the funhouse mirror of a bad game of telephone of their actual argument is not good as political, moral, or normative philosophy. Not just in the obvious stupid ways where you're incentivizing future mass murderers by making clear that they could get outsized publicity and undermine the political opponents by selecting their targets carefully.
The more blunt way where turning all arguments into debates over the "reasonable man's reaction" rather than their actual truth value is insipid. Do you realize the natural consequences of this position? Do you realize why neither I nor you should spell them out?
What do you think would happen if you were to go to LibsOfTikTok's audience and tell them than any reasonable man, seeing what they've seen, should commit horrific acts, instead of commenting against the representativeness and accuracy of what they've seen? Of course, that's not the point, here. You want the referee to step in, and give a timeout and a five-yard penalty, and maybe a yellow card. What possible consequence could come from trying to do that for a tenth of the American population?
I honestly think the increase in the use of "groomer" is because people no longer care to be reasonable. Which isn't to say there there's no good reason to use the word, since I do believe that this modern phenomenon of "grooming" is a real thing that warrants the label in some form. But it is impossible to ignore its more salacious connotations.
Reasonsble concerns were registered, reasonable arguments were made, and the response was to accuse one of wanting trans/gay kids to die. There's clearly no oasis of high-minded discourse down that road. So if the battle requires responding in kind - tainting one's enemies as kid-fuckers - and there's more mileage to get from that, so be it.
This will, of course, result in innocent casualties. And apparently I'm supposed to be angry at the Right when they occur, but all I can summon is disdain for a Left that chose this ball, picked it up, and ran the whole field before the other team knew there was a game on. Shouldn't their steadfast refusal to entertain any sensible debate be held in judgment when these totally predictable consequences occur, even just a little bit?
Here and elsewhere I read commentary about how the "groomer" meme has gone too far, and the Right needs to talk more in a way that invites better understanding and doesn't cast heat at potential innocent bystanders. And I want to yawn so hard that my jaw falls into my coffee mug, because boy if we were all supposed to really care about this, we should have been less idiotic and cavalier about 'trans issues' as we have been the last few years. Best I can do is flail my arms and say "You were forewarned about playing with fire".
Throw the shithead in prison and give him the chair. I'll donate 20 bucks to the execution fund. But there will be no marches of solidarity or moments of introspection, because the CW still marches on around us.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the left is grooming children I'm not "on the hook" for pointing it out and calling it bad just because someone else decides its bad enough to kill someone. If the left is grooming children they don't get a pass on that just because not giving them a pass might cause someone else to act out violently against them.
Edit: Maybe the people accusing the left of grooming children aren't doing it as a rhetorical tool, maybe they really believe the left is grooming children.
Can you define what you consider the defining characteristics of modern leftist grooming?
How malleable do you think sexual orientation and feelings of social and bodily dysphoria around sex roles are in children? If we lived in a society where the concepts of gay people were generally unknown, and the idea of being trans wasn't common knowledge - about what percent of grown adults do you think would naturally and spontaneously be gay or trans?
Do you think the Left doesn't honestly believe their "closeted" model of the situation? (That is, that some percentage of the population will irreparably be gay or trans no matter what shape society takes, and any rise in numbers results from closeted members feeling more comfortable coming out, and not an increase in number due to malleable youth mistakenly identifying as one of these things?) Or do you just believe that it doesn't matter if they honestly belief in the "closeted" model, because they are wrong as a matter of fact, and their belief is just a useful myth that keeps them recruiting for their in-group?
Forming an individual, emotional relationship with children, while in a position of authority over them, that is kept secret from their parents.
More options
Context Copy link
You're asking questions of the wrong person. I don't know if I believe the left is grooming. I do believe that the right believes it.
More options
Context Copy link
Enough to cause about a 3600% increase in referrals to gender clinics, and completely flip age and gender ratios.
About what we saw until the 2010's?
That's fascinating to me.
On one hand, I definitely think that things like prison sexuality, bacha bazi and ancient Greece prove the idea that sexual behavior is partially a product of societal conditioning and material conditions. But I don't know how much that implies actual differences in people's underlying dispositions towards sex. If the story society tells is one where homosexuality is a moral failing, does this make a bunch of closeted gay guys, does it cause would-be bisexuals to bury their feeling so deep that they never act on them? Or can it actually affect a person's sexuality at the margins?
If there's been an increase of self-identified LGB people over the last 40 years, I think it's probably best explained by increasing societal acceptance, and perhaps some malingering from people claiming to be "bi" for social credit. However, I admit I don't know what to think of the T side of things. I suspect that the existence of HRT and other medical interventions does make the options look more attractive, but it's hard to say what that means in practice. More people in the modern world also get boob jobs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people wouldn't have been getting boob jobs through out all of human history if they had been available. They just happened to not be medically possible, so people used different methods like corsets and weird dresses to artificially create more feminine figures.
The T side of things is what I have issues with. Who you sleep with is none of my business. Even if you come to regret it, you can move on with your life mostly without consequences. On the other hand medical transitioning, including puberty blockers, wrecks your body even if you don't regret it. The justification for it is that it's better than living with dysphoria, but if people are transitioning mostly because it's being promoted, we're doing them great harm by waving them through the pipeline, and not questioning them.
My understanding is that HRT was available for decades before the massive post 2010 spike, so I don't think we can use that to explain what we're seeing.
One thing to keep in mind is that we're not living in times where medical transition is merely possible, it's also heavily promoted, and skepticism of it is demonized.
You can't compare this to what's going on with trans issues nowadays. If a dude wants to wear a corset, or a woman wants to wear shoulder pads, more power to them. If you're going to sell them a medical procedure that will make them a patient for the rest of their lives, in the hopes of solving their psychological issues, that's a completely different thing. Not to mention all the slogans like "trans women are women" that everyone else is also supposed get on board of.
HRT was available, but not readily available: the standards of care were a little... stupid.
I think the pendulum's swung too far the other direction, but until 2011, the WPATH SoC required three months "life experience" before physicians were supposed to allow HRT. There was probably an underlying steelman that was making sure people were able and remained interested after doing anything outside of a closed room, but Common Knowledge -- and the legal name change requirement especially -- held to the mid-00s that this meant either cocooning yourself in a very LGBT-specific community or doing a very bad drag impersonation while at your work and normal social life for three to six months, minimum.
I think we'd still have seen a pretty significant boost just by getting rid of that, though I'd expect still less than today. In run, I'd caution a lot of what we're seeing in reporting is probably a conflation of many different categories that you may not be expecting. There are still some medical concerns for butch lesbian / femme nonbinary trans * (low and irregular T doses are probably less likely to lead to ovarian cancer, and still be reason enough for concern), but they're not that far from the corset ones (eg, high heel and chest-binding can actually be dangerous... in rare cases).
I might be missing something, but this doesn't strike me as particularly restrictive? HRT doesn't magically make you pass, so one way or the other you might end up in this situation. Isn't it better to find out if you're cut out for it before you start messing around with your body?
If we can revert that 3600% increase by telling kids to try on a dress for 6 months, maybe we should do that?
No, this is based on referrals to the Tavistock GIDS, not a survey of zoomer tumblrinas.
EDIT: Which, now that I think about it also addresses your previous point. The loosening of the guidelines for HRT has no impact here, since this is just the first step of your family doctor sending you to the gender clinic. You only get HRT after that,
My impression is that medical concerns abound. Increased risk of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, inability to orgasm if you block puberty too early... Even adult detransitioners say they feel they were mislead about the medical consequences of it all, and we're talking about pushing kids through the pipeline...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While I agree with you that blurring the lines to conflate all LGBT+ education efforts and the direct sexual abuse of minors is irresponsible, and likely to lead to violence if taken seriously by the wrong person, do we actually know that his motivation had anything to do with this?
As far as I know, the police haven't made public any information about his motive, so all we can do is speculate over the exact origin of his hate. Remember that the claimed motivation for the Pulse nightclub shooting was supposedly in retaliation for US airstrikes against Iraq and Syria, but the shooter, Omar Mateen, had supposedly contracted AIDs from a Latino man and frequented gay bars himself. It's not clear to me that the Pulse night club shooting can be read as a straightforward act of hate against LGBT people, versus a very messy personal drama spilling out into the rest of society. How likely is it that Aldrich's motives in the recent Colorado shooting won't be a straightforward hate crime either?
The police also haven’t made public that the “suspect,” arrested at the scene of the crime with rifle, armor, and ammo, committed the crimes at all. Or that he’s the same guy who was arrested last year for explosives, despite their matching names and ages. They have a duty not to speculate.
I think the prior for “gay club shooters hate gays” should be pretty high. I’m going to register my prediction that yes, he did in fact have an anti-gay agenda.
More options
Context Copy link
The gay claims about Mateen seem thoroughly disproven. Further, Pulse wasn't even his preferred target, and he seems to have not even known it was a gay nightclub.
Thank you for this. I'm happy to be corrected.
My overall point that OP didn't have any reason to believe that this more recent shooting in Colorado was motivated by any particular anti-gay animus still stands, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Violent nutjobs have gone after whoever they hated most - not infrequently, gays among others - since long before groomer discourse was a thing. You trying to hang this on anyone who ever complained about Drag Queen Story Hour is honestly kind of repulsive. As is trying to spin something out of "His grandfather is a Republican."
Let's assume Aldrich was persuaded by LibsOfTikTok that we must stop the gays from grooming our children by any means necessary. It's still very unlikely that this otherwise stable and non-violent individual was just going to live a peaceful life until Twitter and grandpa told him about the "groomers."
I expect to see "If you say (fairly mainstream thing) you are Literally Killing People" on Twitter, but you offering it unironically here is crap argumentation.
And you're not engaging with anything near a steelman of the argument he made. Painting relatively benign opponents as fascist white supremacists is not particularly productive, nor is it particularly controversial in these spaces that this kind of speech is dangerous. People don't like Arthur Chu talking about putting bullets in tumorous nazi Republican flesh or whatever that quote was. Seems fair to me that PM doesn't appreciate being called a groomer pedophile out to rape your kids, no?
Bad things happen. Bad people do bad things. We will always have bad people doing bad things. Therefore, why bother?
I hear this logic hasn't worked so well with defunding the police, and that actually, there are people who respond to incentives and the environment they live in. Seems pretty reasonable to me that there people out there who may not have been stable, peaceful individuals that nevertheless wouldn't have become mass shooters if it weren't for the toxic political waters we swim in.
It probably wasn't framed in an ideal way, nor does putting it in the context of his previous posts paint a very flattering picture, but...I think his point about not calling your fellow citizens pedophile groomers is valid? If you don't want to engage with it, you don't need to try and reduce it to puerile twitter one-liners.
"Don't call your fellow citizens pedophile groomers" is valid. "This crazy person shot a bunch of people because of what you said" is not. We don't even know what his motivations were yet (we can probably assume it had something to do with not liking gay people) but if you accept crazy people can be driven to violence by toxic narratives in political discourse, those toxic narratives come from many places.
PM is doing that thing we usually criticize the media for doing, getting up on a hobby horse to point fingers and assign blame while the bodies are still cooling and the causal links, such as they are, are far from established.
More options
Context Copy link
With all love and respect to PmMeClassicMemes, they really need to grow a thicker skin on this topic; it's obvious that this gets their goat so badly that they dispense with all the usual decorum and rules-following they normally have. I swear, the nastiness from PMCM only ever comes out when this topic comes up, and it's not good for them or for us.
It also comes out from the mods. This might be the only topic where I’ve seen nara get heated.
Turns out child rape, or accusations thereof, are pretty emotionally charged topics.
More options
Context Copy link
You're not wrong, but there's still a valid argument there to consider.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No. I don't want to enforce consensus, so I'll just say that I think what's not controversial in these spaces is that this kind of speech is treated completely differently by the "trust and safety enforcement" blob. People are upset about the blatantly who/whom censorship, not that Arthur Chu and Tim Wise are allowed to speak.
You could see what PmMeClassicMemes has to say about "harmful speech" targeting people he doesn't like, but after he flamed out of the motte calling everyone Nazis, his Reddit account finally got suspended for saying the quiet part a bit too loud too many times.
So regardless of what you think people here believe, it doesn't appear obvious that he does.
We still have a rule about leaving the rest of the Internet at the door, and we've talked before about your habit of digging up links to every past grievance while arguing with people. ( @gattsuru is doing it too, above, but at least he's kind of addressing past statements relevant to current ones. You're just going "Neener neener, you got suspended on reddit.")
Do not do this.
This is silly. Not bringing unrelated drama from other places is not the same thing as pretending people don't have a track record on an argument they brought up.
You don't have to pretend you don't remember what people have said in the past, when it's relevant to the discussion. If you can link to someone previously contradicting something they are saying now, "Hey, how do you reconcile these statements?" is valid.
Dragging old grudges into every exchange is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Gattsuru did a much better job, as always. My point was a simpler one: that the guy who got banned from reddit for calling people subhuman is probably not treating his argument about suppressing "harmful speech" as a universal principle, just a club to hit (subhuman) speakers he doesn't like.
I'll delete it if you'd like. This entire thread is just the same people relitigating and redeploying the same tactics as the last ten, and I shouldn't have even engaged.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, my reddit account was suspended because I called someone sub-human in an argument on a finance subreddit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This view seems to me to be lacking in nuance. Sure, someone may hate Olmecs, thinking that the nature of their existence is an affront to Vedist principles, but who's to say that they won't only be explicitly driven towards violence against Olmecs after they become firmly convinced that Olmecs are going after Vedist children?
(Or who is to say that they couldn't only decide that they really hate Olmecs at all after they come to think that the Olmecs are going after Vedist children? Modern people are very sensitive about (their) children in these days of advanced medical technology and lowered child mortality. Modern people are also pretty tolerant and "Live and let live, just leave me alone about it."-adhering otherwise.)
I feel like there were/are a lot of people who were/would have been supporters of lesser homosexual creeds such as "Let them do what they want in their own bedrooms.", "Let them do what they want between consenting adults.", "Sure, pride is great, and if people don't want to see grown bears twerking on a Bank of America float they can go somewhere else for the day.", etc. who nevertheless drew the line somewhere around Drag Queen Story Hour, and, as the old poem goes, began to hate. I don't know how many, but surely it's at least one.
I would say this needs a heavy dose of justification. To me it seems like the radicalization that leads to mass murder attacks is highly context-dependent, but I guess I could be wrong about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which is why if you consider left-wing "tolerance" expanding to pedophilia inevitable and think that it will negatively impact your children, you might perhaps consider instead supporting a right-wing pedophilic ideology that allows a man to claim his own offspring as his own sexual property!
(Use this to enhance your sexual gratification and life satisfaction or not. Your choice. If you wish for your daughters to stay virginal/chaste, even in regards to yourself, to enhance their market/social value as young adults or for other reasons, then that is allowed. Unlike in the current system, you may even keep your daughters wholly abstinent for their entire lives if that is your preference.)
I am of course speaking of my preferred pedofascism.
? There is little that is more right-wing/traditional than men having sex with/possessing/being betrothed to young girls, including in the pedophilic range. The age of consent in colonial Delaware was explicitly set at 7. (Was the founding generation of the United States leftist now?) Most modern ages of consent are far newer than the 19th Amendment, much less the 13th and 14th. (I guess those are based now, the tradition and heritage that right-wingers are trying to defend?) For example, Georgia's age of consent wasn't raised from 14 to 16 until 1995 (and wasn't raised from 10 to 14 until 1918, almost the exact same time as the 19th Amendment).
It was in fact specifically the same feminism behind the 19th Amendment which made campaigning to raise the age of consent one of its first orders of business, even before allowing women to vote or prohibition. Basically any age of consent beyond around 10-12 (at least in the modern West as far as I know) or so originates from and is originally an invention of modern, progressive, and explicitly feminist (again in origination) leftism (and even the earlier ones are evidence of those tendencies in a more primordial form).
So I'm afraid that I feel like it is you who is "bending beyond the breaking point" what "right-wing" should mean by apparently suggesting/implying that 99% of right-wingers throughout history somehow weren't actually right-wing. To the vast, overwhelmingly majority of the most trad, masculine, and right-wing men in history (so right-wing they didn't even call themselves "right-wing" in most cases because it was simply the accepted default norms of behavior), the age of consent was either "absurdly" low (by modern standards), non-existent, or likely, in many if not most cases, nonsensical as a concept: If a man is in possession of a female, if she is his property, and if he wishes to make sexual use of his property according to his own preferences and natural rights to unrestricted use of what belongs to him, then what matter is her age? Why would he bother waiting? Because older women don't like that unrestricted access by men to younger ones readily crowds them out of the sexual market? This is the concern of the properly right-wing male?
(We must also consider, as a semi-famous /pol/ post wrote, that nowadays many of the most hardcore right-wingers believe/understand that waiting also usually just amounts to simply a policy of "Give Tyrone and Muhammad [names copied verbatim, not intended derisively] a turn first.", as we all know that many if not most of the "precious" underage girls who supposedly need our "protection" from the "traumatizing" matter of sex certainly aren't waiting/"protecting" themselves from it until they turn 18... Is it very trad, right-wing, and based to ensure that the first penis inside the mother of your children is not likely to be your own and quite likely to be non-White (or of another tribe in general)?)
Would another man tell him that he must leave his meat for some particular period of time before eating it or let his spear "mature" before he takes it into battle? Of course not. Who cares? It's his. So why shouldn't that apply equally to his feminine property (as I assure you almost all men throughout history who were far more right-wing than you or 99% of modern so-called "right-wingers" (and who would likely think of you and them as an "effeminate abominations of modernity" or some equivalent (not saying that as a direct insult/sneer, just emphasizing their vast differences and analogizing to how many modern right-wingers often tend to see modern left-wingers), just as much as you likely think that of some modern left-wingers or kindergarten-attending drag queens) almost certainly considered their females to be some variation of (by modern standards especially))?
Explain that to me in right-wing terms. And explain it to this guy while you're at it too, how he's some sort of naturally left-wing degenerate who someone needs to ride in on a high horse of right-wing propriety to correct. Explain it to the notoriously feminist left-wing progressive (by modern standards) Romans (sarcasm) too.
(Protip: You won't be able to use, for the example, The Bible, as much as that is in my view a Jewish invention/instrument of subversion against the Roman hierarchy and thus actually not really properly/ideally right-wing itself (at least in its non-Aryanized form), because it doesn't mandate/suggest any age of consent and often quite blatantly condones violations against our society's current Holy Number of 18. (That is, even the guys against the Romans for not being egalitarian/left-wing enough saw no problems with their sexual predilections in regards to age.) But I suppose medieval Crusaders weren't as right-wing as the modern median oh-so-hardcore "trad" online right-winger because they... post about how they don't like drag queens online? Or about how restoring natural masculine sexual age freedom that most men throughout history wouldn't have even thought twice about is just "edgy musing"? I can't say they've exactly been upstaged here.)
Consider the following:
Do not confuse certain irregularities of the modern political realm with the absolute truth of political ontology for all time. That would be a severe error that would potentially make you look quite foolish.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, there’s probably at least one person with a 10,000 word manifesto on how fucking kids is lindy, and he probably has at least a few followers. Bacha bazi is also both pedophilic and very much not on the left.
In general though, when people say ‘right wing pedophilic ideology’, they’re referring to a very small number of fundamentalists who think men should marry teenaged girls. That’s not pedophilia, technically, but whatever. And these people are a distinct minority even in their own communities, but they do exist as an ideology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link