ColonizationHere we go: the P belongs in the alphabet soup

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from i.imgur.com

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]hufflepuff-poet 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is why LGB people need to wake tf up, smell the pervy grifter and start extracting ourselves and our social reputation from the "LGBTQ2SWTFXYZ++ community" before the rest of the normies peak and we are all pushed back into the closet and it becomes even less acceptable to be gay than it already is!! 😤😡😒🤡🤢

LGB = love, date and sleep with any consenting adult you want. Same-sex relationships should be acceptable in society. Self-love and acceptance takes work and no one else can do it for you; the truth hurts, but it will set you free when you finally let go and accept who you are.

TQ+++= degeneracy and delusions of all stripes are heckin' valid and should be acceptable in mainstream society. Self-destruction is a human right. Same-sex attraction doesn't exist because there is no opposite or same sex, sex is a spectrum or social construct.

[–]dilsencySame-sex community 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Same-sex attracted people need to celebrate and organize around exactly and only that: same-sex attraction.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 25 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That's right, and if this becomes accepted we are toast.

Oh, and I need to insert my obligatory "I am vomit" comment.

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Much of society already views gay men as pedophiles, so this will just be the final nail in the coffin.

[–]CancelPowerSuper Bi Male 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Uh...maybe in 80s. I honestly rarely if ever hear anybody (Even the homophobes) believe in this stereotype anymore. The only people that believe in it are white nationalists but they are very rare.

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

My mother believes this, and she believes it about lesbians as well. She told my girlfriend at the time that she didn't want her around kids because of pedophilia. And she's no white nationalist or anything. Just a run of the mill Evangelical homophobe.

[–]fuck_reddit 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

“Allying with the already popular isn’t liberalism.”

Well, good thing I’m not a liberal and I can say that gay people have nothing to do with pedophiles. Not a great look for “liberals.”

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

I am marginally liberal, but I think a lot of liberals have gone loopy when it comes to this kind of stuff. Critical thinking has gone out the window in favor of emotional convenience, and people have gotten plain lazy when it comes to progressivism. They use templates forged from prior social victories to get their feel good Samaritan euphoria. Instead of asking, "What changes can I help foster to improve people's lives without harming anyone?". They ask, "What in vogue social causes(which can be equated to those aforementioned victories) can I endorse and espouse for that quick and easy(just add water slogans about being on the right/wrong side of history) dopamine rush and what clearly negative effects of that cause should I overlook or compartmentalize away to the nether-regions of the brain to maintain my woke high?".

[–]cutenoobies 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is the end goal of the gender identity. They are reaching there quite fast.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

NO.

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

The worst part is this guy isn't even one of the TQ activist nuts that this lunacy can be expected of, he's a sexologist high on virtue signal and huffing his own farts and probably thinks he's so enlightened instead of just spewing absolutely moronic takes.

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

I don't want to put words in Cantor's mouth, but I think the approach he is taking is thus:

There is a majority sexuality out there: and that is sex with normal, consenting adults. You can break that down a bit and recognize that there is the procreative variety, again, a majority, and the non-procreative variety.

Of course, some might be inclined to say that heterosexuality is the majority interest, but it is not, insofar as bisexuals and homosexuals operate identically to heterosexuals, save for the variation of same-sex desire and behavior. It depends on how you look at it. Are you concerning yourself with the nature of the thing, or the minutia of who it's being done with? Where's the salience? This is all an exercise in perspective. What matters?

Where is the semantic, logical, moral anchor to all this?

We need a diving line to distinguish between what is normal, and what is not, but, alas, where to hang this off of? What concrete thing could do, aside from what is popular? Men and women having at it is popular, but is that normal? Do we derive a concept of normal from the popularity of the thing? What if that popularity--normal--is not just an item of frequency, but of social acceptance? Gay rights, etc. Certainly you are aware of ongoing changes in that.

I think Cantor is hanging it off of benign, procreative sexuality. (I will quickly point out that the most malignant sexual behavior, in terms of outright frequency of crime--rape--is perpetrated overwhelmingly by heterosexuals.) So, his dividing line is that which is suitable for reproduction, and that which detracts from it... for a concept of "normal," but this isn't necessarily a claim of a moral good, either.

There are religions, sometimes niche ones, that encourage procreating as much as possible--and they do consider this a "Good." I'm inclined to agree in some fashion, really. Having a few humans around is a Good Thing, but this is a religious claim.

So, inasmuch, he does lump himself, a homosexual man, in with everything else that does not result in the propagation of the species--all the various fetishisms, autogynephilia, masochistm, etc. Things that detract from reproductive success. Things that are antithetical to reproduction--they are numerous and sundry in the realm of paraphilia. Castration? But, how did we come to an understanding of paraphilia, the other? Things that do not result in reproduction. Things that are not popular. Things that are weird, that don't fit with the mores of the time. Sound familiar?

This is his "in" group. It's an exceptionally scientific, technical understanding of the topic. He's not advocating abdicating moral responsibility. He's working out a typology, aided with an exceptional understanding of the topic and its history.

Insert moral panic here.

I have no intention of porking my partner in the bread aisle at the grocery store. I ask nothing of others that I would not do myself.

I might be a bit different, sexually (who am I kidding really?) but that does not mean I've abandoned the concept of propriety. Therein lies the problem. Does being different mean that propriety has to go out the window? (This just might be the teaching moment for "these people.") It does not mean that every difference must neatly fit into a sociopolitical concept of "sexual orientation," such that we have to--god forbid--celebrate it. There's a sociopolitical angle to this, and there is a Cantor angle, too. The latter is a technical one. Not some nice glossy thing that makes a good political banner--but it is how things are--reality.

Some hands of cards dealt in life are absolute shit, and while I got dealt a weird one, I didn't get dealt one of "those" ones. It's safe to assume you didn't get a normal one if you're here reading this. So, I'll consider myself lucky on that account, and truly, my heart goes out to the people who got the worse hand.

Sometimes you play a hand, some times you just realize that you have to fold. Sometimes, it's not just a bad hand, it's a harmful one to play. You can't ethically play it. Being a short heterosexual man is a shit hand. Being a man who likes little kids is an especially shit hand. But it's still your hand of cards. What about those people? Oh, we don't like them. They are bad. So people choose their height, then?

I'll finally suggest that the anti-TQ activism is going to fail unless this is recognized. We all want to assume that the male-to-female transsexualism motivated-by-autogynephia-takeover of LGBTQ+ is the doing of the transsexuals. But what if it is not? What if this is a majority phenomena? A perverted, virtual-signaling, luxury-belief-having class of people who fetishize identity politics... who really did it? Is the dog barking up the tree without the squirrel in it?

If you can--abandoning your assumptions--figure out why pedophilia is demonized while transsexualism is celebrated, then, I think you have a handle on it. If you don't get your hands on this, then perhaps, celebrating child molestation is in fact, next.