all 33 comments

[–]Retardation_station 36 insightful - 15 fun36 insightful - 14 fun37 insightful - 15 fun -  (2 children)

an annoyed queer

Is there anyone who identifies as "queer" that doesn't walk around annoyed all the time?

[–]hufflepuff-poet 23 insightful - 10 fun23 insightful - 9 fun24 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

Reality can be very annoying when you're constantly trying to deny it.

[–]odiusgay man 10 insightful - 8 fun10 insightful - 7 fun11 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe they meant annoying?

[–][deleted] 37 insightful - 1 fun37 insightful - 0 fun38 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not attracted to the word woman, I'm attracted to female sex characteristics.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 27 insightful - 7 fun27 insightful - 6 fun28 insightful - 7 fun -  (6 children)

it's same gender attraction.

Ah, yes-- a pink-wearing person's attraction to another pink-wearing person! The attraction of a person who likes monster trucks to another monster-truck-liker!

Hell, why do we even need PEOPLE involved, anyway? "The love that dares not speak its name" could now apparently be between two identical paint swatches!

Is anyone else beginning to suspect that this obsession with "gender" is at least sometimes a matter of... pathological prudishness? An attempt to, in effect, de-sexualize sexuality? Make it about disembodied shit like clothes and abstractions and fuckin' COLORS instead of, yanno, ew-y genitals? And the stuff you do with 'em? And the feelings associated with that? Which apparently these people are just too uncomfortable with?

The worst part, I think, is that they can't ADMIT their discomfort; they need to see themselves as proud sex-pozi sluts... and apparently redefining "sex" so that it's about the fake shit associated with sex (i.e., gender), rather than sex itself, is their way of doing this. So naturally biological sex has gotta go, too. Being inextricably linked with that gross FUCKING business and all.

[–]fuck_reddit 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I was just reading today a comment thread on FB. Some people at an unnamed university were saying “sex is a social construct, call whatever you like sex,” in reference to sexual congress, not biological sex. The definitions they did try to put forward were just ridiculous because they were clearly trying to avoid acknowledging penises and vaginas.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've touched on this before; That maybe some of these people are actually quite "conservative" about sex. They are uncomfortable with any concrete discussions of the reality it is. Especially same-sex attraction. The problem is that they are usual very "liberal" in other ways and young so being squeamish about sex is not consistent at all with the expectations of their political alignment and demographic(it makes them look uptight and/or inexperienced). So they use/make up countless gendery terms to put as much of a buffer between themselves and raw, unfiltered sex talk. It's a reaction to their peers almost requiring an open-sharing attitude to a subject they may not naturally be very open about.

Fellow student, you're progressive like us and presumably not a close-minded puritan. What do you feel about -insert sex characteristic-?

Um... Hearts not Parts! Love is Love!

Jolly Good!

Phew😌

[–]DimDroog 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is that they are usual very "liberal" in other ways and young so being squeamish about sex is not consistent at all with the expectations of their political alignment and demographic(it makes them look uptight and/or inexperienced)

Very interesting theory, and it makes sense.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've touched on this before; That maybe some of these people are actually quite "conservative" about sex. They are uncomfortable with any concrete discussions of the reality it is. Especially same-sex attraction. The problem is that they are usual very "liberal" in other ways and young so being squeamish about sex is not consistent at all with the expectations of their political alignment and demographic(it makes them look uptight and/or inexperienced).

Co-signed. And yet... I think that there's nothing too unusual about this, really; being sexually-insecure (about whether one is attractive enough, experienced enough, uninhibited enough, etc.), at least to some degree, is pretty much a "join the club!" kind of thing. So a lot of people are gonna feel this way. Especially the nerdy, the non-neurotypical, the mentally ill... and the young (being conflicted about sexuality seems just as much a part of adolescence as horniness-- yeah, there's lust, but there's also confusion, squeamishness, and fear a-plenty). But what with the dumbed-down form of "sex-pozi" now a liberal shibboleth, progressives not only can't say that sex ever makes them uncomfortable, they can hardly even THINK it. Because having anything less than a no-boundaries libido is practically heresy at this point.

And, I mean... WHO can meet THAT standard? Being the very embodiment of uninhibited slutdom? It seems set up to make everyone feel like a prude! Even if they just have average levels of self-consciousness, self-doubt, and (dare I say it) modesty.

So they use/make up countless gendery terms to put as much of a buffer between themselves and raw, unfiltered sex talk.

Perfectly-put! "Gendery terms" (good one!) as... insulation. A way of ostensibly talking about sex... without actually talking about sex. AKA plausible deniability! (Though YMMV on the "plausible" part.)

I suspect that this whole mess may also be contributing to the "trans" craze in a few more ways:

  • "Thou Shalt Be Sexually Unconstrained" = sexual orientations are a no-no, since they're as much about who you AREN'T attracted to as who you are. Goes double for homosexuality, because it's: 1.] exclusive (rules out the opposite sex); and 2.] "supposed" to be all about unbridled, wanton, let-yer-freak-flag-fly licentiousness (at least in wokesters' eyes), so how DARE gay people ever say "no"???!!! IT'S UNNATURAL I TELL YOU
  • Terror of being a prude disables liberals' pervert-alarm, so they can no longer tell when something (or someone) is creepy. Explains their embrace not only of fetishistically-motivated transgenderism, but also assorted WTF-ery such as "drag kids", drag queen story hour, etc.

Fellow student, you're progressive like us and presumably not a close-minded puritan. What do you feel about -insert sex characteristic-?

Um... Hearts not Parts! Love is Love!

Jolly Good!

Phew😌

LOL crisis (i.e., having to-- horrors!-- discuss GRODY GROWN-UP STUFF) averted! Carrie's mom, Margaret "Dirtypillows" White, would approve! Next up: "correcting" med school curicula to teach that babies are brought by the stork.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And, I mean... WHO can meet THAT standard? Being the very embodiment of uninhibited slutdom? It seems set up to make everyone feel like a prude! Even if they just have average levels of self-consciousness, self-doubt, and (dare I say it) modesty.

Average levels of self-consciousness fall in the middle of the spectrum, and since some of the moral(two sides of the same coin really) enforcers on the extremes are very dichotomous in their thought processes, any sexual expression(or lack therof) deemed more conservative then their ideal is dogmatic behavior of the "religious right", instead of personal choice. It's like they have their very own custom kind of overton window that they in their ideological bubble, think is standard.

Perfectly-put! "Gendery terms" (good one!) as... insulation. A way of ostensibly talking about sex... without actually talking about sex. AKA plausible deniability! (Though YMMV on the "plausible" part.)

I also like to think of it as throwing out bright hot, colourful flares that only appear to be about sex to draw off the heat-seeking questions away from their actual sex life as they fly away to the safe-space of subjects about gender expression(blue shirt or pink?) instead of ever talking about sexual attraction.

"Thou Shalt Be Sexually Unconstrained" = sexual orientations are a no-no, since they're as much about who you AREN'T attracted to as who you are. Goes double for homosexuality, because it's: 1.] exclusive (rules out the opposite sex); and 2.] "supposed" to be all about unbridled, wanton, let-yer-freak-flag-fly licentiousness (at least in wokesters' eyes), so how DARE gay people ever say "no"???!!! IT'S UNNATURAL I TELL YOU

It's like if people think they're "tolerant" or "accepting" of minority sexualities then these minorities practically owe it to them to conform to their stereotypes and figuratively dance like a monkey for them. And the fact is, a lot of lgb do this in order to be accepted by the mainstream. And this just confirms their bias that it's fine to expect and even demand that same-sex attracted people to behave this stereotyped way, especially homosexuals. There really is an air of "These sexualities are made-up and ours is the true real sexuality" about it all.

Terror of being a prude disables liberals' pervert-alarm, so they can no longer tell when something (or someone) is creepy. Explains their embrace not only of fetishistically-motivated transgenderism, but also assorted WTF-ery such as "drag kids", drag queen story hour, etc.

The dedication to open-mindedness is a double-edged sword. Neither necessarily good or bad, but is synonymous with "good" among liberals, so it is simultaneously a liberal's greatest strength and weakness depending on the situation they are dealing with. If you are dealing with entrenched, old-fashioned thinking with no basis in reality, then it's good. But when it comes to this TQ stuff, it's been mostly harmful with few redeeming consequences.

[–]DimDroog 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

"The love that dares not speak its name" could now apparently be between two identical paint swatches!

HAHAHAAA!

Dear god, I'm dying.

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Dear fucking god that’s a masterpiece. You couldn’t make it up.

[–]Dromedary 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"clinically offensive scientifice [sic] term"- Too funny, what a dingbat. Picturing doctors in white lab coats, "Sex? That's clinically offensive!"

[–]chazzstrong 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This whole goddamn world has gone insane.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 13 insightful - 8 fun13 insightful - 7 fun14 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

"How dare you try to use science against me!"

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 12 insightful - 7 fun12 insightful - 6 fun13 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

TRAs: You can't tell a person's gender just by looking at them.

Also TRAs: People are attracted to gender not sex!!

[–]usehername 12 insightful - 5 fun12 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

scientifice

[–]theytookourjerbsXX only. 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I lost brain cells while reading this....

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

clinically offensive

Ok but that isn't really a thing. A clinically insane person might be offended but otherwise it's just throwing together official sounding words.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Agreed. I feel like I've seen other examples of this type of misuse of official-sounding words among people in the TQ+ movement, as well.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah starting with "man" or "woman".

[–]GayBoner 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m case you haven’t noticed, there are bad actors out there creating fake QT Twitter posts / screenshots / etc. to stir up outrage. This is a prime example.

Don’t get me wrong, the push for “same gender attracted” is infuriating and real; but this appears to be a fully fabricated account and Twitter post.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But if this is the case, shouldn't they be, I don't know, pushing back against this?

It's almost like this garbage actually reflects aspects of their ideology.

[–]GayBoner 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed 100%. It basically gives an amplified voice to the worst part of the TQ+, but instead of pushing back it seems to make them move vocal and detached from reality.

[–]JoeyJoeJoe 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This insanity is too well coordinated and too militant to be organic. Someone is funding this whole movement. Pinknews.co.uk, Stonewall & its corrupted variants have all been infiltrated - but that takes MONEY.

Where is it coming from?

[–]reluctant_commenter 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

God... this shit is so disheartening to read. Queer Theory believers go around saying "Accept someone's identity OR ELSE!" yet they will never accept me for being same-sex attracted. That is the truth for me, and I know it's the truth for a bunch of other people as well, but comments like this are exactly why I am so leery to talk to other "LGBTQ+" people in real life. Because many believe in this ideology, and would deny that my sexual orientation-- homosexuality-- exists or is legitimate. Just like the same type of shit I heard from the religious right growing up... "That's not a legitimate sexual orientation! You should be ashamed of yourself for saying it is!" God, they really all do sound the same.

[–]DimDroog 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Of course they have the hammer and sickle in their profile.

They have no idea what it really means: the joining of the farmer and factory worker.

They fully embrace "queer theory" without realizing that they'd be thrown in the gulag for being Western subversives

Morons, but dangerous morons.

Their ideas have gained mainstream approval.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They fully embrace "queer theory" without realizing that they'd be thrown in the gulag for being Western subversives

So true... under all of the communist regimes that I'm familiar with? They'd surely be "western decadence!!!" personified.

And the thing is? That actually seems pretty spot-on. Like, objectively. The whole TQ+ phenomenon looks, at least from where I sit, like a product of post-industrial western culture-- specifically its empty, joyless, thoroughly-artificial self-indulgence/hedonism which brings Huxley's Brave New World to mind. Speaking for the U.S., it's very reflective of our dysfunctions as a society. Particularly the isolation and powerlessness of the individual, the commodification of identity and sexuality, corporations' omnipresence/omnipotence, and the near-total alienation of people from their biological nature. I really don't think that this whole TQ+ thing could even have existed before the internet. Not only due to the technology itself, but because of the mind-set that it produces.

All of which, ironically, makes these wokester-"communists" about as "counter-revolutionary" as you can get. And, even more ironically, thanks to horseshoe-theory... not so different from the very types who would condemn them to the gulag themselves. Certainly, if the gender-cult had its way, people like us would be breaking rocks for the thoughtcrime of saying that we don't wanna fuck 'em.

[–]DimDroog 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This comment?

Pure gold

It's sick, our society is so sick

I need to re read the Unibombers Manifesto.

I don't like what he did, but boy, his ideas resonated with me

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Whoever reported this comment, sorry, we're not removing it. He has not violated the Pyramid, as you claimed.

Respond to him if you disagree with his points, and engage in civil conversation. If you cannot engage in a healthy way, that's OK, then don't respond.

I know it's a shocking concept, but you do not have to engage with everything someone says. You are responsible for your own actions. Us mods are not your babysitters or therapists.

[–]DimDroog 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Someone reported it?

HAHAHA!

Here is the first part

INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE Introduction

  1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

I don't know what the "Pyramid" is, but it sounds silly.

I don't agree with his actions.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know what the "Pyramid" is, but it sounds silly.

The Pyramid is the "Pyramid of Debate", which SaidIt is founded on: https://saidit.net/static/PyramidDebate.jpg

The lower a post/comment falls on the Pyramid, the more likely it is to be removed. Some subs are stricter than others, but here, the lowest three are the ones we keep an eye out for regularly. Anything in the middle is looked at on a case-by-case basis, and the top three are almost always fine.

We do remove posts/comments even in the top three if they break our sub rules though. We're allowed to because we've removed our sub from s/all, and have a clear statement in the sidebar that we censor content and opposing opinions (debate).

[–]DimDroog 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you.

Yes, I did not violate the Pyramid, at all.