LOL WUTTikTok bans the Derek Jensen Queer Theory Paedo Jeopardy video for hate speech

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from (x.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It’s worth a watch if you haven’t seen it before, I’ve posted a couple of times here as have others.

Basically a lefty professor goes through all the leading lights of Queer Theory and tells you how they all promote or support paedophilia and how the paedo shit is the goal for Queer Theory.

TikTok banning it is interesting as it clearly allows the full gamut of QT fetish shit aimed at young people but not something educational.

[–]JulienMayfair 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Queer Theory has always been fundamentally oppositional, opposing all taboos and boundaries. As such, there's nothing built into it as a way to signal going too far. It's no surprise that age of consent laws became a target for them. They don't care about what it means to live a good, rewarding life; they simply want to smash anything that gets in the way of their appetites. And I say that as a gay man.

[–]AriShekelsteinDDS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well said. They’ve made it pretty fucking clear that they’d rather burn it all down than consider backing off.

When you’ve made a point of going out of your way to be as unreasonable as possible, you don’t leave people much of a choice. Otherwise reasonable people might decide at some point that it’s time to do some pretty unreasonable things in response.

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

consider backing off.

When your whole project is to be "transgressive," where do you stop? You can't admit to having gone too far because that would mean that there is such a thing as going too far.

I read Queer Theory in the 1990s. I attended two Judith Butler lectures. I had a flirtation with it in my own scholarship, but then I began to see that there was something wrong with it.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think there are times where being transgressive is desirable, but it has to be actually based in something other than simple transgression in and of itself.

Let's just go full internet and use the Nazis as an example. People going around rounding up people and sending them to camps, being transgressive against the norm of obeying authority and attacking the Gestapo at every opportunity is probably to long term net social benefit. But only if your transgressive behavior is based on some sort of belief in fundamental human rights.

If it's just immature rebellion against authority just cuz, well it's a lose lose prospect. Either you lose your revolution and you get destroyed, or you win your revolution, are the new authority, and get destroyed by the neo-revolution.

Perhaps comedy is an exception to this as making fun of people in authority and flouting social rules in the context of a jest will always be funny I think. But again it takes someone who actually understands the social norms well to effectively make fun of them. Otherwise you just get dumb kids doing shit like orange man bad jokes.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can’t base your moral principles on “transgression of norms” for all the reasons u/julienmayfair says, but as you say transgression can be a valuable way in which the cause of humanity is progressed. I think the answer is that “Transgression” is merely the tool, but the principle around which you build your moral framework should be human dignity, which is what we had done in the west until the rise of PoMo and critical theory. If we establish, as we had, that there are hard lines you don’t cross because they are counter to treating all humans with dignity (don’t rape children, don’t murder, don’t compel thought or speech etc) then you are still free to transgress social norms and boundaries, which is what great thinkers and artists have always done, but there’s a hard limit and importantly that hard limit isn’t derived from a religious tradition or arbitrary decision, so if you transgress that then either you’re going to face consequences or you’re going to have to try really, really hard to develop a sane and cogent argument to rationalise your transgression.

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

Unreal. Just when I think they can't surprise me any more, they do.

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

Tiktok is a Chinese weapon designed to destroy the west, this shouldn't be surprising at all

[–]Erasmus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I guess what surprises me is that they banned it even though video isn't an attack on queer theory from the right. It's literally an exploration of the foundation of queer theory from its founders. So at some level, they feel their own theories are so repellent that ordinary people must be protected from knowing too much about them.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's pretty normal. The pedophiles have been operating under a strategy of trying to demonize anyone who calls them out on it for years. Ever encounter someone like that IRL and they'll find all sorts of ways to find you morally questionable and find all sorts of false equivalencies if you even suggest their behavior might be inappropriate.

Stuff like "you've dated people much younger than you". And like well sure, but there's a very big difference between say, a 50 year old dating a 20 year old. And a 30 year old dating a 15 year old.

"There's nothing illegal about going to a restaurant with a 15 year old."

Probably true if indeed that's all that happens. But again misses the point, and frankly the lack of realization about how bad that might look and how it might negatively effect then leads me to wonder if they aren't just totally socially retarded.

In this video you can see as the guy is pointing out direct quotes by these people in defense of pedophilia the heckler is employing similar strategy. Show a quote from someone defending pedophilia, then you must be a homophobe, but this guy's response is the correct one, who is the person associating homosexuality with pedophilia? Who is actually the homophobe?

We need to get over this nonsense that pointing out there's a pedophilia problem in the larger homosexual movement is somehow homophobic or is somehow a claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I don't really care because I don't have skin in this game but it always is bizarre to me when homosexuals want to pretend the issue doesn't exist, don't you realize that the entire reason why that stereotype exists in the first place is because of these people? And don't you realize if they are let alone they will reverse all the social gains you've achieved for homosexuals in general?

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a lefty professor

That right there is a bit of a shocker, that side of the divide doesn't normally pull back the curtain and show the ugly workings behind the scenes like that.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

China knows exactly what the fuck it's doing.