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 -  (5 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.