Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Gay Tony

Gender & Sexuality

Recommended Posts

Eutyphro
you call out bad ideas for being bad.

 

Calling everyone on one side of the political spectrum an asshole isn't an act of "calling out ideas". You really entirely miss the point.

 

 

but by and large it's run by assholes and assholes are the ones who tend to make rules and laws and institutions that dictate how other people should live their lives.

If you think there's world wide support for same sex marriage then you have quite naive world views. It's an example of moral progress that we have made this step in many parts of the developed world, but most of the world has not made that progress yet. In parts of the Middle East, and maybe some parts of Africa, you can find majority support for stoning homosexuals. I'm willing to agree that anyone who supports the practice of stoning homosexuals is an asshole, considering how utterly morally degenerate that is, but I wouldn't call any person with traditional ideas on family life a slur. You won't convince anyone by calling them an asshole anyway, and it is quite intellectually degenerate to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

it's not a political spectrum thing.

I don't care where bad ideas come from. they're just bad ideas.

 

I'm not calling "everyone" anything.

but homophobes and bigots tend to be assholes with poor excuses and poor validations for their beliefs.

 

you're just arguing a straw man now. you're putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say anything about how much of the world "supports" same sex marriage or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

 

you call out bad ideas for being bad.

 

Calling everyone on one side of the political spectrum an asshole isn't an act of "calling out ideas". You really entirely miss the point.

 

 

but by and large it's run by assholes and assholes are the ones who tend to make rules and laws and institutions that dictate how other people should live their lives.

If you think there's world wide support for same sex marriage then you have quite naive world views. It's an example of moral progress that we have made this step in many parts of the developed world, but most of the world has not made that progress yet. In parts of the Middle East, and maybe some parts of Africa, you can find majority support for stoning homosexuals. I'm willing to agree that anyone who supports the practice of stoning homosexuals is an asshole, considering how utterly morally degenerate that is, but I wouldn't call any person with traditional ideas on family life a slur. You won't convince anyone by calling them an asshole anyway, and it is quite intellectually degenerate to do so.

 

If someone reserves the right to call homosexuals things like "degenerates" and "abominations," I reserve the right to call that person an asshole. Why is it my responsibility to be accommodating to their point of view, when they barely acknowledge gays as human beings?

 

If someone has 'traditional ideas on family,' that's fine, but if they act on those ideas to restrict the rights of others, that's being an asshole. I'm not saying every religious fundamentalist should try taking one up the ass to see if they like it, I'm saying live and let live. Same goes for the hundreds of new genders that now exist but I haven't taken the time to learn about. I don't identify as any of them, I don't personally see the need for them, but if someone feels compelled to identify that way, I'll respect that and wish them all the best. In what way does it effect me at all?

 

That's what really baffles me about people who aren't even religious but still sh*t on these people: why does it even matter to you? Don't even give me the "they ram it down our throats" line, because I've always had to seek out examples of 'SJW madness' and everyone I see making a fuss about it are doing some professional-grade mental gymnastics to justify their irrational rage over the cast of the new Ghostbusters movie. It's not hard to tune it out if it upsets you so.

 

You made a point about virtue signalling, but the very same can be said about the conservative take on this: they condemn these gender identities to signal that they're concerned about 'moral decay.' A dog whistle to their in-group. It fits the narrative that they're the only morally-strong group in a world of liberal decadence. They then convince themselves that their take is the 'common sense' take and everyone else is literally mentally ill. Yet calling them out as assholes is "why Trump won."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

the world isn't "made up" of assholes.

but by and large it's run by assholes and assholes are the ones who tend to make rules and laws and institutions that dictate how other people should live their lives.

 

I don't believe in respectfully disagreeing with disrespectful opinions.

at some point bullsh/t needs to be called what it is; a giant pile of illogical excrement. if the person who believes in bullsh/t can't handle criticism and isn't willing to self-analyze then I don't really see why we need to keep capitulating to their lack of understanding. I don't want to hold their hand and lead them across the bridge step by step. I'd rather cut the bridge behind me and let them die off.

 

save for immediate revolutions, that's more or less how progress happens.

you push progressive ideas. you call out bad ideas for being bad. and you march forward. the dinosaurs will die off. progress is slow but progress doesn't go backwards.

 

"Progress" doesn't go in any direction. It's a completely subjective idea that basically just means something is good. In reality there isn't one path with a binary forwards and backwards. There's just infinite paths. For many people what Trump represents is progress, for many it's regress. For some people gay marriage is progressive, for others it's regressive. Some people might see incestuous or 3+ person marriages as good, others as bad. Would you call people that oppose those 2 things, assholes? Is anyone who opposes anything other than total and complete freedom and equality for everyone and everything an asshole? If someone opposes a paedo making a realistic VR computer game so he can pretend he's f*cking kids, is he an asshole too? The paedo isn't hurting anyone, and he might not have chosen to be attracted to kids. I thought everyone deserved the exact same privileges and rights across the board?

 

So anyone who denies anyone else of rights and privileges, must be an asshole. Everyone must be an asshole to you then. But what makes someone who opposes gay marriage worse than someone who opposes group marriages or someone who opposes incestuous marriage? I thought everyone was equal? Are gays more deserving of rights and privileges than people who want to marry 2 or 3 other people or people who are in love their siblings? Why? That sounds a bit like you treat gays better than those other people. Doesn't sound much like you treat them equally or fairly to me. You must think you're an asshole too then surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

What next, you're going to argue he should be for marrying animals as well? Is that also in the realm of this strawman of equality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

What next, you're going to argue he should be for marrying animals as well? Is that also in the realm of this strawman of equality?

 

He's the one who's supposedly pro "equality", so those things aren't strawmen they should be his principles if he really is actually actually concerned about equality and isn't a hypocrite. Marrying animals isn't the same because a) they aren't human and b) allowing marrying animals would be encouraging beastiality and animal abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirsty

Incest and polygamy might be something worth debating and discussing, after all it involves consenting adults, so I can kind of understand the comparisons, though we're probably generations away from it being "normal" discussion. Both are illegal, but so was homosexuality once in the western worlds.

However I do think bringing paedophilia into this is pretty questionable and the suggestion that they deserve rights in their illness "just like gays" is a low point to make, even if that's all you're trying to do. Children cannot consent, EVER, and this will never change. Have you not seen the news lately about the historical football abuse? This is a very real issue still today and has only got worse with how easily people can access CP rings on the Internet. I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would ever suggest that believing in equality for gays should mean you should apply to paedophiles as well. I think paedophilia is an illness that should be studied and treated, I don't know how because I'm not a psychologist or a doctor, but certainly shoving it under the carpet as a taboo subject hasn't helped either, but again, we are talking about children here, giving a paedophile a sex doll is worlds apart from giving consenting adults equal rights to straight people. You're certainly not the first and won't be the last to make the comparison though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I think many people who champion equality would draw a line somewhere in the region of "between consenting individuals of sound mind, as long as no harm or increased risk of harm is bestowed upon a third party." The latter of those is sort of subjective but I would argue, as I'm sure would many others, that encouraging any kind of sexual activity with individuals unable or unwilling to consent (even if through a virtual medium) constitutes an unacceptably increased risk of harm, so your paedophile game analogy doesn't really work.

 

I don't have any strong feelings on multiple party marriages, and would argue that as long as there was no possibility of siring biological children (again, unacceptable risk of harm) then I don't really care about incestuous marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

when they barely acknowledge gays as human beings?

I'm not sure there are a lot of people in the Western world unwilling to 'recognize homosexuals as people', apart from some Islamic immigrants (that's a tough but sad truth). I don't think any of the conservatives referenced in the OP that started this discussion think homosexuals should be put to death, or shouldn't have human rights. The right for homosexuals to marry is in my opinion an example of moral progress, and I don't think such progress is entirely subjective, but I have a degree of respect for many opinions that I think are wrong. And I don't go around slurring everyone who disagrees with me on anything.

 

 

He's the one who's supposedly pro "equality", so those things aren't strawmen they should be his principles if he really is actually actually concerned about equality and isn't a hypocrite.

 

They are slippery slope fallacies. But I think the point that even the most radical progressive still accepts basic premises of traditional family life, like that incest is wrong, is a fair one to make. But it's not hard to argue that allowing incest is more harmful for the structure of human social life than gay marriage. In a lot of Western countries the age of consent used to be lower than it is now. And it seems people figured out that some of the traditional norms we wanted to get rid of were actually still important, and that further deregulating social life to an extreme degree would actually be regress in stead of progress.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DaWiesel

You made a point about virtue signalling, but the very same can be said about the conservative take on this: they condemn these gender identities to signal that they're concerned about 'moral decay.' A dog whistle to their in-group. It fits the narrative that they're the only morally-strong group in a world of liberal decadence. They then convince themselves that their take is the 'common sense' take and everyone else is literally mentally ill. Yet calling them out as assholes is "why Trump won."

 

Well, they don't agree with these gender identities because they are based on feelings and not on facts. It's a fact that male and female exist, everything else is just based on feelings, therefore it's fair to say that anyone has a right to refuse to acknowledge imaginative gender if they don't agree with your feelings and emotions.

 

There are like 30 different genders and many more, only two of them with scientific evidence though. I'm all for people believing what they want to believe, but just as long as other people aren't forced to believe in their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I don't even think those who oppose using 'non-binary gender pronouns' are 'condemning' the people who want to be called by them. Most transgenders want to be called he or she, so those who don't are a minority within the minority known as transgenders, but still they want wider society to use fantasy terms specially for them, which is obviously incedibly delusional. In Canada there has been a controversy that if you are unwilling to call these confused people by their fantasy pronoun, you might be legally sanctioned. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Is anyone who opposes anything other than total and complete freedom and equality for everyone and everything an asshole?

well yes, kind of.

obviously there are boundaries of personal liberty, maturity, and consent.

 

I'm not sure why you brought up pedophilia or incest.

we know these things are inherently wrong because of the obvious and explicit damage they cause both physically, emotionally, and physiologically. incest and pedophilia literally go against nature and nature has cues (such as horrific birth defects and psychological trauma) to remind us of this.

 

absolute freedom still has boundaries.

but assuming you're not harming anyone then there's really no good reasons to stand between a group of people and their desired path to pursuing life and happiness.

 

if you're going to bring Virtual Reality pedophilia into the mix, it still falls within the boundaries. personally I don't see why we should prevent pedo's from enjoying some kind of realistic fantasy if it keeps them from touching real children. let them have their VR porn games. I'm not going to argue against that in principle, though clearly both are current understanding of psychology and our technology are still lagging behind such a reality. otherwise I'm fine with that idea.

 

Everyone must be an asshole to you then.

lol well not exactly.

you haven't been paying attention. I reserve the belief that most people are not assholes but most institutions and organizations of power are comprised almost exclusively of assholes. or borderline spectrum assholes.

 

 

 

what makes someone who opposes gay marriage worse than someone who opposes group marriages or someone who opposes incestuous marriage? I thought everyone was equal?

 

again you're not paying attention.

in your rush to try and one-up my logic you've skirted around applying any basic logic of your own. I'll educate you, I guess....

 

someone who opposes gay marriage is worse than someone who opposes incest.

opposing incest is natural and correct because incest is unnatural, unhealthy, and carries great risk of serious damage for the offspring of the relationship. we should oppose incest. we shouldn't encourage it. we shouldn't legalize it.

 

opposing gay marriage is just ignorant and homophobic.

gay marriage is not shown to threaten anyone. they make great couples. they make great partners. they make great parents. at the very least they're no worse than all of the terrible white-trash-wife-beating-child-absuing-alcoholic assholes who are already married just because they're straight. there's literally no good/logical/rational/medical reason for opposing gay marriage. it only ever comes down to politics or religion. society evolves much faster than politics and religion ever will.

 

opposing gay marriage just places you squarely on the wrong side of history.

you're making this much more obtuse and difficult than it needs to be. it's very simple. do no harm. get out of the way of liberty. apply some basic common sense, will ya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Everyone must be an asshole to you then.

 

lol well not exactly.

you haven't been paying attention. I reserve the belief that most people are not assholes but most institutions and organizations of power are comprised almost exclusively of assholes. or borderline spectrum assholes.

Which is based on the premise that those who hold power have on average completely different social views than the general populations, which is generally not true. Or it might be based on the premise that those who don't hold power aren't responsible for the views they have, which is a way of treating people who aren't in positions of power like children who have no responsibility or agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Which is based on the premise that those who hold power have on average completely different social views than the general populations, which is generally not true.

you're putting words in my mouth...

 

I don't know if people in power have different social views necessarily, but they often capitulate for, lobby with, and owe favors to organizations who do have extreme views and who have an agenda to push. regardless of their social views people in power have very different economic views, and this is where the most serious of our problems originates. indomitable greed and lust for control. they don't have our interests in mind. the vast majority of them only care about their wealthy benefactors. they only care about the elite and the money and maintenance of their own station in power.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

@Kirsty, we're talking about moral objections and taboos and equal rights, and how far that all goes. Considering paedophilia is probably the biggest taboo in our society, I thought it was pretty relevant to bring up. Although even then I didn't actually bring up child abuse, just a VR simulation of it. It wasn't in any way directly being compared to being gay though.

 

@El_D, to play devil's advocate, the arguments you're making that incest and paedophilia go "against nature" were also made against homosexuality and still are. People might say anal sex isn't exactly safe, or technically "natural" since the anus isn't designed for that purpose. It generates tearing and bleeding, which combined with the fact that faeces pass through there, poses a high risk of infection and it isn't sanitary. From an evolutionary standpoint homesexuality serves no purpose either. I'm not saying I agree with that, but if you're bringing that "nature" argument up then it doesn't really seem like you're applying it consistently.

 

Being against incest in particular isn't just about preventing birth abnormalities. If it was, then where's the opposition to people marrying and having children who have serious genetic conditions and have just as high a chance if not a higher chance of passing those conditions onto their children, than 2 close relatives do? The only difference is one is considered morally abnormal

 

I don't think you're really being consistent with your rationale, it's like 1 rule for 1 thing, and another rule for another thing. You criticise people and call them assholes for being against gay marriage, but then you're against other things for the same reasons people are against gay marriage.

Edited by GTA_stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Which is based on the premise that those who hold power have on average completely different social views than the general populations, which is generally not true.

you're putting words in my mouth...

 

I don't know if people in power have different social views necessarily, but they often capitulate for, lobby with, and owe favors to organizations who do have extreme views and who have an agenda to push. regardless of their social views people in power have very different economic views, and this is where the most serious of our problems originates. indomitable greed and lust for control. they don't have our interests in mind. the vast majority of them only care about their wealthy benefactors. they only care about the elite and the money and maintenance of their own station in power.

Yes, but we are talking about whether those who hold traditional social views deserve slurs thrown at them, which is really not an economic, but a social question. Hence why I said social views. We're not talking about economics.

 

 

You criticise people and call them assholes for being against gay marriage, but then you're against other things for the same reasons people are against gay marriage.

Those who oppose homosexuality, or worse, think homosexuality should be criminally punished, are wrong. And those who oppose incest, group marriage, or digital pedophilia are right. Those three examples are categorically unhealthy behaviour, or behaviour that has damaging effects on others. It's not easy to argue for why that is so, but people who think it is so are simply right.

 

Incest is an ancient taboo, and your point that the taboo is not based on taught instrumental rationality is accurate. The taboo against incest is probably innate, and we have good reasons to prohibit incest, considering the idea that someone can have an emotionally healthy relationship with a relative is very dubious. By prohibiting it we are simply protecting people against doing something that is universally harmful for their emotional health.

 

A similar thing can be said about group marriage, and furthermore it is an inefficient economic agreement, that emotionally harms children. I remember seeing a documentary about Mormon group marriages where children from these marriages argued about the damaging effects. It's complicated and harmful enough in a divorce situation when a child has two parents, and an increasing number of parents really makes the situation even more harmful and impractical. Nobody will legally stop you from having extramarital affairs, but group marriage as a construct for parenting is idiotic.

 

And finally, on digital pedophilia: pedophilia is simply such an incredibly damaging act when practised in reality, that giving pedophiles access to material that encourages their sexual imagination is a bad idea. It is in the interest of society that pedophiles should suppress their sexual desires, or opt for chemical castration.

 

There is no proof that homosexuality is damaging like any of these examples, and therefore there is simply no reason to prohibit homosexuality like we do these examples. So the reasons aren't really 'the same'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

Would you call people that oppose those 2 things, assholes? If someone opposes a paedo making a realistic VR computer game so he can pretend he's f*cking kids, is he an asshole too?

 

Yes to both. Also included: "White nationalists"

 

 

 

 

What next, you're going to argue he should be for marrying animals as well? Is that also in the realm of this strawman of equality?

 

He's the one who's supposedly pro "equality", so those things aren't strawmen they should be his principles if he really is actually actually concerned about equality and isn't a hypocrite.

Grasping at straws to such an extent that you even admit to trying to put words in his mouth/him not having actually said nor implied it.

 

@Kirsty, we're talking about moral objections and taboos and equal rights, and how far that all goes. Considering paedophilia is probably the biggest taboo in our society, I thought it was pretty relevant to bring up. Although even then I didn't actually bring up child abuse, just a VR simulation of it. It wasn't in any way directly being compared to being gay though.

 

@El_D, to play devil's advocate, the arguments you're making that incest and paedophilia go "against nature" were also made against homosexuality and still are. People might say anal sex isn't exactly safe, or technically "natural" since the anus isn't designed for that purpose. It generates tearing and bleeding, which combined with the fact that faeces pass through there, poses a high risk of infection and it isn't sanitary. From an evolutionary standpoint homesexuality serves no purpose either. I'm not saying I agree with that, but if you're bringing that "nature" argument up then it doesn't really seem like you're applying it consistently.

 

Being against incest in particular isn't just about preventing birth abnormalities. If it was, then where's the opposition to people marrying and having children who have serious genetic conditions and have just as high a chance if not a higher chance of passing those conditions onto their children, than 2 close relatives do? The only difference is one is considered morally abnormal

 

I don't think you're really being consistent with your rationale, it's like 1 rule for 1 thing, and another rule for another thing. You criticise people and call them assholes for being against gay marriage, but then you're against other things for the same reasons people are against gay marriage.

 

Your response to Kirsty is one that only you could make. A lack of direct comparison does not negate the implications of your posts.

Not new to you is a complete lack of understanding of homosexuality based on a feeble attempt at what could most generously be called pseudo-science.

(Honestly, is there no low point to which you will not stoop? You've referred to trans people as "delusional" and used slurs/hate speech against them in an almost boastful way in the past. It is beyond me how you're still not banned.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

Even ignoring the increased risk of birth defects, incest is a minefield of consent questions, unbalanced power dynamics, and potential for emotional abuse and manipulation. If it's cross-generational, or even if there's a significant age difference, there's a real potential for emotional manipulation. An outside observer can't easily tell if they spontaneously fell in love one day or if one of them (presumably the older one) had been 'grooming' the other for that type of relationship. Perhaps they're now both consenting adults, but one cannot be certain that the seeds weren't planted at an early age. In theory, there are conditions for a relatively wholesome incestuous relationship, but there's no telling, and no way to tell, exactly how rare that is.

 

Polygamy also has consent questions, but not inherently. In Mormon and Islamic situations, it was often entirely non-consensual on the woman's part. In fact, often they were arranged marriages between very young girls and a much older man. They were often more like feudal/patriarchal business deals. In a situation between consenting adults, I see no problem. I'm not sure if there are issues with child-rearing, I've not done any research into the matter, but I do know that there have been cultures in the past that engaged in communal child-rearing. All that said, I can't say I support polygamous marriage in the US today, but mostly because I think it would be a major headache with tax codes. Maybe they could just form a corporation instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

The Conservative movement itself is a backlash against gains made by marginalised groups. Literally it was created to defend segregation and to oppose the New Deal. Euty has some starry eyed idea of honest working people who are just a 'bit traditional.' If more people are joining the Conservative movement in response to BLM then how is that any different to the OG conservatives who started it in response to the civil rights movement? Social movements aren't supposed to tip toe around possible backlash.

 

If there is some average working guy that has strong opinions on race and is constantly feeling attacked, then they are consciously, provocatively saying racist things. Joe Sixpack is not aware of PC run amok on college campuses, and in fact does not care unless he is heavily involved in right-wing politics, ie a racist.

 

With regards to the gay issue, these are people who turf their relatives out onto the street for being gay. They send them to very real, very horrible reeducation camps. But if you use any strong language to describe them, you're the bad guy. Forgive me for not sharing the vision of the right as being made up of twee 1950s throwbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Joe Sixpack is not aware of PC run amok on college campuses, and in fact does not care unless he is heavily involved in right-wing politics, ie a racist.

 

Joe Sixpack is aware of PC run amok on mainstream media though. And the ideas of collective guilt based on skin color, strong censorship of language, glorification of first world victim identies including white women which is an utter joke, generally treating these 'victim' groups as groups of infants that can't be criticized (criticism of Islamic doctrine is 'Islamophobia', criticism of the mainstream notions on the wage gap is hatred of women) etc.. that are pushed by the mainstream media in order to divide people and make them resentful. Joe Sixpack is well accustomed to all those phenomena. And though Joe Sixpack is generally sort of an idiot, and possibly a racist, or a sexist, and will probably criticize in an unsophisticated manner, there is an aspect of legitimacy to his critique of as you call it 'PC run amok'.

 

I could perfectly write a thesis at the gender department about how whiteness and maleness are intrinsically toxic, but a paper criticizing the inaccuracy of some ideas of the BLM movement would be very taboo. This does prove that PC has run amok, and that it is really limiting a significant portion of possible constructive debate. PC has really become a divisive and regressive force in society. And you don't have to be a right wing reactionary to perceive this. George Carlin has several bits on how language has become increasingly soft, and how politically correct language is developing in a way as if to protect weak minded infants from words that hurt their feelings. And increasingly rather centrist liberal professors are starting to publicly support the anti PC movement, because it is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

 

Joe Sixpack is not aware of PC run amok on college campuses, and in fact does not care unless he is heavily involved in right-wing politics, ie a racist.

 

Joe Sixpack is aware of PC run amok on mainstream media though. And the ideas of collective guilt based on skin color, strong censorship of language, glorification of first world victim identies including white women

Nobody in our society is reacting to the 'glorification of women' whatever that means. People who feel they are being held culpable for racism 'just because they're white' are racists generally found in the Conservative movement.

 

You are projecting your own anti-feminism and your own hostility towards black liberation onto the rest of the population. The people who voted for Obama but then turned around and voted for Trump, also voted for the Republican congress in Obama's second term. They do this every time the democrats get into power, in order to express their disappointment. The rest have had their racism brought to the surface by BLM and have latched onto a renaissance of fascism. It is a white blacklash, much like the election of Nixon. Do you also blame black people and women for that?

 

 

 

I could perfectly write a thesis at the gender department about how whiteness and maleness are intrinsically toxic

'Whiteness' and masculinity are inherently destructive, so you'd be right.

 

 

 

a paper criticizing the inaccuracy of some ideas of the BLM movement would be very taboo.

Your rightist sympathy is showing. If you had an essay on BLM thrown back at you by the teacher I can only assume your thesis was 'black people have it great and should stop inconveniencing white people.'

 

PC gone mad is a thing, but it privileges the establishment position, not the leftist position. The only positions you can't express are ones that are too radically pro-women or anti-Capitalist. This is not a revolution over you getting 0 in your gender studies class, this is not 'disposable' men standing up to those mean feminist women.

 

 

 

that are pushed by the mainstream media in order to divide people and make them resentful.

Yep feminism is just a bourgeois plot to keep the working man down. How could we be so blind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Nobody in our society is reacting to the 'glorification of women' whatever that means.

 

My point is that I'm disgusted to have to listen to rich white elitist females talking about their femininity as if it is a handicap, a social construct created in an evil conspiracy by the patriarchy, and that they are victims, when they are really among the most privileged people to have ever lived. It's just sad to see how incredibly self loathing and ungrateful they are, and how they want to further spread their own misery as far as possible.

 

 

Do you also blame black people and women for that?

 

Where the f*ck am I 'blaming black people and women'? Can you cite where I'm doing that?

 

 

You are projecting your own anti-feminism and your own hostility towards black liberation onto the rest of the population

 

Where the f*ck am I 'opposing black liberation'?

 

 

Your rightist sympathy is showing. If you had an essay on BLM thrown back at you by the teacher I can only assume your thesis was 'black people have it great and should stop inconveniencing white people.'

 

I've never written one. But you could easily write one about the fact that there's no actual empirical evidence that deadly police shootings are racially profiled. The ratio of black people shot relative to white people by the police corresponds to the contribution to violent crime. Excessive police violence is definitely an issue, but so is excessive violence against the police. Apart from that the slogan 'hands up don't shoot' was based on a proven false scenario. It seems there's very limited attention to the general concept of the for profit prison industrial complex by BLM. And though I have strong sympathies for BLM, it seems they often have bad priorities because they have been susceptible to false mainstream media narratives. It's also disappointing that they didn't rally behind Bernie Sanders. In fact, what they did was publicly humiliate him, probably after being hired by the Clinton campaign to do so. I don't have 'rightist sympathies' but neither am I an ideologue like you are.

 

 

Yep feminism is just a bourgeois plot to keep the working man down. How could we be so blind?

 

There is a strong bourgeois element to it, obviously. Not to keep the working man down, but that is just one of the many strawmans you just produced. I know the narrative is that women entered the economy and left the limitations of being housewives after an ideological war in which they gloriously prevailed, but another more credible explanation is that capitalists considered it profitable if women entered the work force in larger numbers, and that many house tasks were simplified by innovation which made that possible. I'm not even an 'anti feminist'. I don't think we should go back to the 50's. But I also don't think we can or should 'destroy current gender' and create absolute equality of outcome by mass coercion and shaming and denying nature and natural science, which makes me 'anti-feminist' these days I guess.

 

But my actual point was that the mainstream media doesn't push narratives of social justice or progress to make social justice or progress, but generally highlights the most emotional, irrational and divisive narratives, to keep people resentful and passive. In the US over 90% of all media are owned by 6 companies, and those who own those companies don't want people to be even slightly informed.

 

'Whiteness' and masculinity are inherently destructive, so you'd be right.

 

As opposed to blackness and femininity which are inherently superior?

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

@El_D, to play devil's advocate, the arguments you're making that incest and paedophilia go "against nature" were also made against homosexuality and still are.....I don't think you're really being consistent with your rationale

lol... I'm not consistent.

look who's talking.

 

this is not a black and white issue.

just because something is natural doesn't make it right or wrong. my arguments are not based on that premise. I never said anything like that. the rationale for why some things are wrong and some things are right is based on their potential for harm and abuse. like I said, this is a lot simpler than you're making it. and you know it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

Nobody in our society is reacting to the 'glorification of women' whatever that means.

 

My point is that I'm disgusted to have to listen to rich white elitist females talking about their femininity as if it is a handicap, a social construct created in an evil conspiracy by the patriarchy, and that they are victims, when they are really among the most privileged people to have ever lived. It's just sad to see how incredibly self loathing and ungrateful they are, and how they want to further spread their own misery as far as possible.

Rich women are unreflective morons but hey, so are men, so are white people.

 

 

Where the f*ck am I 'blaming black people and women'? Can you cite where I'm doing that?

 

You've done nothing but blame women and PoC's social movements since election day. Calling them 'divisive' and all but outright saying that white guys would get on board if they weren't called racist and misogynists

 

 

 

Where the f*ck am I 'opposing black liberation'?

You're not, you're being hostile to a black social movement. .

 

 

 

The ratio of black people shot relative to white people by the police corresponds to the contribution to violent crime.

Okay, I guess, but the shooting are not justified? The rate of incarceration is also massively disproportionate. Are you saying the colour of your skin has no effect on how the police treat you?

 

 

 

It's also disappointing that they didn't rally behind Bernie Sanders. In fact, what they did was publicly humiliate him, probably after being hired by the Clinton campaign to do so.

What's disappointing is Sanders refusing to rally black people. Also that woman that grabbed the mic of Sanders wasn't 'hired by Clinton' otherwise she wouldn't have denounced Clinton as well.

 

 

 

It seems there's very limited attention to the general concept of the for profit prison industrial complex by BLM.

How is this a politically incorrect statement? How would saying this be 'taboo' at a modern university? In fact even pointing out that the Mike Brown shooting was justified under American law would be acceptable. You'd probably get in trouble for calling the shooting 'illegal' rather than simply unjust, on that basis.

 

 

 

I don't have 'rightist sympathies' but neither am I an ideologue like you are.

You are a pretty raging liberal. Last I checked liberalism was a political ideology. But like all liberals you think being moderate makes you neutral.

 

 

 

Not to keep the working man down, but that is just one of the many strawmans you just produced.

I don't deal in strawmen. You said in plain English that feminism is a ploy to divide the working class and keep the rich in power. If you want to call it a sneering reduction to absurdity, fair enough.

 

 

 

I know the narrative is that women entered the economy and left the limitations of being housewives after an ideological war in which they gloriously prevailed, but another more credible explanation is that capitalists considered it profitable if women entered the work force in larger numbers, and that many house tasks were simplified by innovation which made that possible.

Even liberal feminism is not a Capitalist ploy, dear God. The former narrative is much closer to reality. Middle class women did need to organise together, raise consciousness, and work tirelessly to destroy legal barriers in order to enter the professions. If it weren't for this, universities would still be male only and specialised firms would still only hire men. Women challenged this, women changed this, not Capitalists!

 

 

Excessive police violence is definitely an issue, but so is excessive violence against the police.

Diddums! Oh those poor babies why can't people just be nice to armed-to-the-teeth thugs that occupy their communities?

 

But I also don't think we can or should 'destroy current gender' and create absolute equality of outcome by mass coercion

You still haven't qualified what this 'coercion' is.

 

shaming

God forbid women shame us for being a brutal oppressor class. What's next, socialists making fun of rich boogies? Not in my name!

 

denying nature and natural science

If you think the natural sciences provide proof that men are inherently masculine and women are inherently feminine, you are very wrong. I'd suggest you think about what that entails, and the intense reality bending powers you are attributing to sexual dimorphism.

 

But my actual point was that the mainstream media doesn't push narratives of social justice or progress to make social justice or progress, but generally highlights the most emotional, irrational and divisive narratives, to keep people resentful and passive. In the US over 90% of all media are owned by 6 companies, and those who own those companies don't want people to be even slightly informed.

Actually they are just incredibly moderate. The 'feminism' that is offered in the mainstream media, is incredibly moderate, incredibly soft on men. Patriarchy as well as white supremacy (and 'income inequality') are treated as disembodied happenstance rather than a system of power maintained by an oppressor class.

 

 

As opposed to blackness and femininity which are inherently superior?

Blackness is neutral. It simply means 'African.' 'White' on the other hand refers to pureblooded Europeans. Femininity- being ritualised submission- is also destructive, but doesn't represent a constant social attack on another group and is imposed externally.

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

idk why we're arguing so hard I'm kind of with you on PC gone mad but I think you're casting too wide a net. Like 'cultural appropriation' is definitely a thing with regards to American iconography. Native Americans do consider it a big deal, but generally conversation about it are just competitive virtue signalling. Not from Natives themselves, who are not heavy into postmodernism.

 

I just saw a guy on facebook call someone a 'f*ck boy' and get told he was appropriating 'AAVE' (African-American Vernacular English) and actually apologise and edit his post! Then they're like 'hey you know what you did' and someone else had to chime in like 'hey there's no need to reshame him he knows he did wrong.' Then he said 'af' and got told that was AAVE and was like 'I guess my tweets just got a few more characters.'

 

It's not that they are too anti-racist or too ultraleft, it's that it's part of the postmodern tournament over who is the most politically correct. It's a status seeking endeavour and its ideology is liberal. Idpol is, at the end of the day an individualist way to analysis social injustice, ignoring division of labour and power relationships and explaining things away through individual bigotry.

 

Believe it or not even I come off as pretty edgy in some circles because I don't think 'gender identity' is a thing but I don't think they're actually 'more progressive' than I am. They've just created an orthodoxy based on postmodern word salads and lash out at anyone who disagrees. Again they're really just limiting the spectrum of acceptable views so that they have more status within the apparently ever shrinking category of 'not a reactionary sh*tlord.'

 

That said, I don't think people are generally aware of this. I don't think its why Trump won, I think the answer there lies with older 'conservative democrats' than the alt-right, but I do think idpol is something that fuels the latter. The more neutral viewpoints that are decryed as 'literal violence' the more neckbeard eye rolling seems reasonable and less like edgy performance politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

idk why we're arguing so hard I'm kind of with you on PC gone mad but I think you're casting too wide a net. Like 'cultural appropriation' is definitely a thing with regards to American iconography. Native Americans do consider it a big deal, but generally conversation about it are just competitive virtue signalling. Not from Natives themselves, who are not heavy into postmodernism.

 

Feminists want to have their cake and eat it too. They supposedly say they oppose the ideas that Western culture or 'whiteness' are neutral, and that it is their aim to get rid of that. But at the same time anything from a Western culture can be appropriated by anyone, but nothing from a non Western culture can be (by Western people). Do you see the contradiction? By not objecting to the appropriation of anything Western, you are turning Western culture into a neutral and normative force. If feminists wanted to be consistent about cultural appropriation they'd have to become white nationalists. Really what feminists do is patronize people of colour and pretty much anyone who is not a white male, by pretending people are infants that are not capable of hearing bad words or controversial thoughts. It's a toxic idea to pretend that white people are collectively oppressing black people currently. The world is much more complex, and less racist than such a generic and idiotic ideological assumption. It is in general a toxic idea to pretend that only white people can be racist. By pretending every single thing a white person says is said in an effort to preserve their white privilege you are systematically poisoning the debate and making people resentful. You are really pushing people towards white nationalism with these efforts. Because generally most people are either going to fall in line with PC, or are going to build up so much resentment for not being allowed to talk about many subjects in their own words, that when they start talking their words will be resentful and fascist.

 

 

Idpol is, at the end of the day an individualist way to analysis social injustice, ignoring division of labour and power relationships and explaining things away through individual bigotry.

 

It's not individualist. It's ultra-collectivist. It assumes that you should consider your own thoughts and ideas, and censor yourself, on the basis of an ideology of perpetual collective guilt.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

idk why we're arguing so hard I'm kind of with you on PC gone mad but I think you're casting too wide a net. Like 'cultural appropriation' is definitely a thing with regards to American iconography. Native Americans do consider it a big deal, but generally conversation about it are just competitive virtue signalling. Not from Natives themselves, who are not heavy into postmodernism.

 

Feminists want to have their cake and eat it too. They supposedly say they oppose the ideas that Western culture or 'whiteness' are neutral, and that it is their aim to get rid of that. But at the same time anything from a Western culture can be appropriated by anyone, but nothing from a non Western culture can be (by Western people).

You see when you say stuff like this its clear where your criticisms come from. What does this have to do with feminism? Feminists are the ones baring the brunt of PC gone mad, and the ones with the clearest criticisms of it. You blame women specifically for this trend even though it's primarily used to silence them.

 

Cultural appropriation is like, how people say MLK would be a Republican or wear Che Guevara shirts or whatever. It's part of a power relationship. It's a useful and relevant concept even if 99% of the time you hear its from a pomo liberal. You object to it on the grounds that its inherently offensive towards white people. Is it not just obvious that white people do this?

 

 

 

It's a toxic idea to pretend that white people are collectively oppressing black people currently.

If its not part of a power relationship, then why is racism a thing? If its just simple bigotry then you should agree with identity politics.

 

 

 

You are really pushing people towards white nationalism with these efforts

Me opposing 'cultural appropriation' doesn't really extend beyond thinking the Redskins should change their name and fraternities should stop throwing 'border patrol' parties. I don't think we should coddle white people though. In 2016 we should be able to lecture whites over this:

 

ZTQ0NDE5YWIzYiMvZWNlb2kwVGYwNHR3M1ZhYXQ2

 

without people throwing a tantrum and launching into fascism. And I think if you told the average person that people were offended by this, they'd understand. The only people who are aware of 'SJWs' are the small fraction of the population that argues about politics on the internet. To everyone else, the alt-right and the new new left are just white noise.

 

 

 

It's not individualist. It's ultra-collectivist. It assumes that you should consider your own thoughts and ideas, and censor yourself, on the basis of an ideology of perpetual collective guilt.

Liberalism isn't proper philosophical individualism, it just makes vague appeals to it. It's really 'collectivist' in that it demands one social class collectively adapt to service another. Postmodernism is liberal individualism though. It treats individual choice to be central to understanding society, it is liberal by any reasonable definition. It's generally incompatible with left-wing political thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

You see when you say stuff like this its clear where your criticisms come from. What does this have to do with feminism? Feminists are the ones baring the brunt of PC gone mad, and the ones with the clearest criticisms of it. You blame women specifically for this trend even though it's primarily used to silence them.

 

Where I live, the important feminists in academia actually publicly claim they consider veiling women a symbol of emancipation, which is a completely insincere and idiotic PC thing to say. If they really thought veiling was emancipation, they would wear one. But it is just pandering to and paternalizing another culture out of the idea that the more you believe in collective guilt, the more morally enlightened you are. And really, you should stop the rhetoric that these fundamentalists represent all women, and that me opposing specifically them reflects what I believe about women in general. These ideologues don't represent all women, but they are radicalizing a lot of young women into their ideology, sure. Exactly with the type of collectivist rhetoric you use in almost every post. The idea that radfems represent women as a monolith as another example of that.

 

Cultural appropriation is like, how people say MLK would be a Republican or wear Che Guevara shirts or whatever. It's part of a power relationship. It's a useful and relevant concept even if 99% of the time you hear its from a pomo liberal. You object to it on the grounds that its inherently offensive towards white people. Is it not just obvious that white people do this?

 

Well, maybe if we wouldn't be taught to hate ourselves and our culture so much, we wouldn't feel as much a need to steel from other cultures. But I don't think you are arguing that we should rebuild a strong pride for the history of Western culture and civilization. Which is really what we should do. The current political climate and the election of Trump can be seen as a crisis in Western culture.

 

And I think if you told the average person that people were offended by this, they'd understand.

 

I think if you are so thin skinned that you can be deeply offended by some white kids being silly, that you should really get your priorities, and your feelings, in check. Apart from that, I think people really tend not to give a sh*t about it, and that these are mainstream media fabricated bullsh*t narratives to distract people from that which is meaningful.

 

The only people who are aware of 'SJWs' are the small fraction of the population that argues about politics on the internet. To everyone else, the alt-right and the new new left are just white noise.

 

They are generally the younger generation, which should worry us all. It's worrisome that there is a political polarization and radicalization going on.

 

Liberalism isn't proper philosophical individualism, it just makes vague appeals to it. It's really 'collectivist' in that it demands one social class collectively adapt to service another. Postmodernism is liberal individualism though. It treats individual choice to be central to understanding society, it is liberal by any reasonable definition. It's generally incompatible with left-wing political thought.

 

I can only say what I believe, and that is not that I think that "one social class should collectively adapt to service another". What I think is that our intent should be to provide equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome. People should be rewarded based on merit. Those who are good people and who are specially valuable to the community should see rewards for that. Though I also believe greed and ostentation are bad. They aren't only bad because you rob the community from resources, but also because it corrupts your soul. But jealousy of those who are successful corrupts your soul as well.

 

And like I said, I don't agree that postmodernism, or whatever you may call what you hear at the gender department, is individualist. It's deeply collectivist.

 

 

If its not part of a power relationship, then why is racism a thing? If its just simple bigotry then you should agree with identity politics.

 

My issue is really when the analysis of power becomes psychology, and then becomes hatred and bias against every single individual based on their skin colour. You won't end bigotry by being one. And you won't end bigotry by parading with how much you hate yourself either.

 

But apart from that, you are confused. Identity politics is exactly a collectivist psychology of hatred.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Where I live, the important feminists in academia actually publicly claim they consider veiling women a symbol of emancipation, which is a completely insincere and idiotic PC thing to say.

Let's put aside my faint disbelief of the whole notion, and the slightly odd argument from anecdote approach you've made to expressing it. These person are, according to you, an academic? Therefore one would reasonably expect there to be an academic argument behind this view? Rather than resorting to broad-brush tarring with utterly meaningless terms like "PC gone mad", why don't you cite her justification for holding this view and argue logically against that?

 

If they really thought veiling was emancipation, they would wear one.

This statement is completely illogical and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

Over the past few decades or so and especially recently there's been an increasing train of thought that gender is entirely a social construct with hardly any biological basis, which I at least partly disagree with on the basis of varying hormones and differing demands based on evolution and clear differences between males and females throughout the animal kingdom.

 

There's also this thinking that people are born straight, gay, bi, etc.

 

 

If we're born with a certain sexuality is it so out of the question we're probably also born with gendered attributes attributing to biology as well.....which means gender isn't entirely a social construct.

I think this whole gender thing has been blown out of proportions. There are two biological genders. Male and female (and rare cases of hermaphroditism).

What we like to do in bed, our sexual activity, or to whom we are sexually attracted, shouldn't in any way define our gender. Applying a gender to an individual just through personal taste or sexual orientation is implicitly wrong. If we go that way then we should create a gender for any given personal taste. Pizza lovers, pizza haters and so on...

Then what would be a person that engages in sexual activity with people all over the spectrum of sexual orientations? A multi-sexual? It is kinda stupid.

A male that has sex with another male is still a male. A male that enjoys homosexual sex. That's all.

I believe it is way less complicated than it seems. It's another idiotic attempt at categorizing people through their sexual activity to divide them in separated opposed groups when in reality what defines an individual is a vaster spectrum of things, not only sexual activity.

You can define yourself as bisexual, gay, lesbian, heterosexual, but you still are either a male or a female.

Theory of gender is just an elaborated cultural and political scam.

Edited by Doc Rikowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.