Funny events in anti-woke world

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,914
9,605
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
If Fred Rogers wasn't dead, they'd want him to be
Fox News had the gall to condemn him after he died, calling him an "evil, evil man" because he made kids feel special "when they didn't deserve it".


Because that's what it's all about. Keeping people "in their place", making sure they don't get what "they don't deserve".
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,016
665
118

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,557
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
And the future was predicted once more


It used to be a joke. And of course, since then, it's the progressives who "got radicalized" and whose "cancel culture" threaten everything.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,233
970
118
Country
USA
So sexeeeeyy. As all his articles (which results and methodologies you clearly studied in depth), clearly jerking off while writing it.
Given the full context of what he's written, yes. He is definitely jerking off to these things. He studies how witnessing animal castration can contribute to ideation, and then goes online and sends people links to animal castration equipment, so that they can ideate with him.
It sounds to me like you're considering acceptance and kindness towards a certain group to be "overt political messaging", in a way that you wouldn't if it was almost any other group (I.e. race, sex, disability).
I think you're treating "acceptance" and "overt political messaging" to be mutually exclusive. People can say things that you agree with, that may even be objectively true, with the sole intention of lording political power over others.
There's no advocacy here, because he plainly doesn't want Daesh to succeed.
With all I've seen, I'm not confident of that.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,157
6,409
118
Country
United Kingdom
I think you're treating "acceptance" and "overt political messaging" to be mutually exclusive. People can say things that you agree with, that may even be objectively true, with the sole intention of lording political power over others.
In that case, you're just assuming malevolent intent. The actual content of the messaging here is fine and uncontroversial. So if you want to assume some hidden malice, you're not basing it on anything rational.

That is, of course, unless you want to make the argument that encouraging kids to accept and be kind to others is a message that shouldn't be in schools. In which case, fuck that.

With all I've seen, I'm not confident of that.
It appears that you're not willing to separate description from advocacy, then. God forbid you find out about historians or crime novelists.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,016
665
118
It used to be a joke. And of course, since then, it's the progressives who "got radicalized" and whose "cancel culture" threaten everything.
well yes.

The conservatives don't want kids to see the art.
The progressives don't want the art to exist or be allowed to be made.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,233
970
118
Country
USA
In that case, you're just assuming malevolent intent. The actual content of the messaging here is fine and uncontroversial. So if you want to assume some hidden malice, you're not basing it on anything rational.
If the actual content is fine, then what is the reaction to it? Are you not assuming malice on the part of the administration?
It appears that you're not willing to separate description from advocacy, then. God forbid you find out about historians or crime novelists.
I'm not going to fault you for playing devil's advocate in an argument, but that's what you're doing at this point.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,157
6,409
118
Country
United Kingdom
If the actual content is fine, then what is the reaction to it? Are you not assuming malice on the part of the administration?
That's a hell of a take. "It must be bad because people objected"?

I'm not going to fault you for playing devil's advocate in an argument, but that's what you're doing at this point.
Not really-- I simply haven't seen anything particularly compelling. All we have here is some stuff on a forum that critics are circumstantially assuming was written by him (after he had anything to do with WPATH), and an article he wrote about the historical use of eunuchs as an administrative tool by caliphates (which is factually true).

As efforts to torpedo the credibility of worldwide expert bodies go, it's one of the flimsier ones.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,583
12,291
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Fox News had the gall to condemn him after he died, calling him an "evil, evil man" because he made kids feel special "when they didn't deserve it".


Because that's what it's all about. Keeping people "in their place", making sure they don't get what "they don't deserve".
Even Anonymous and 4Chan hated and went after Fox News for it briefly.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,233
970
118
Country
USA
That's a hell of a take. "It must be bad because people objected"?
It's not that it must be anything. We are considering a situation where we have extremely limited information, "adverse reactions are usually caused by bad things" is not illogical speculation.
Not really-- I simply haven't seen anything particularly compelling. All we have here is some stuff on a forum that critics are circumstantially assuming was written by him (after he had anything to do with WPATH), and an article he wrote about the historical use of eunuchs as an administrative tool by caliphates (which is factually true).

As efforts to torpedo the credibility of worldwide expert bodies go, it's one of the flimsier ones.
It's funny then. You could very easily say "ok, that guy's messed up, and including him in standards of care was negligent at best, but that's still very minor when criticizing an entire field of medicine." But you're not doing that, you're not ceding even the most minor of points, as though admitting there's even the possibility of some bad actors involved in the thing you defend would break the whole thing, even when you know that's not the case.
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,557
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
Given the full context of what he's written, yes.
Oh yes, the "full context of what he's written", which you're so immensely familiar with.
"Indeed, as also noted by Handy etal. (2016), some voluntary eunuchs have sexual attraction to and fantasies about castrated men. Given that there are people with erotic target inversion (Brown etal., 2020), it is likely that some of the voluntary eunuchs are aroused by the idea or fantasy of being castrated in accord with that common theme in EA stories (Piccolo etal., 2022). Our recent data (Wibowo etal., 2022) indicated that individuals with desire for genital ablation (be it castration or penectomy) are also at higher odds for being attracted to men without genitals. For a few participants, their castration desire was induced by their sexual partner encouraging it. It remains to be determined how such an interaction would lead to someone having an extreme desire for genital ablation. The eroticization of castration can be an extreme paraphilia, which may indeed lead some individuals to eventually get themselves castrated. At the same time, individuals may seek castration to get control of that same paraphilia when it leads to repeated genital self-injury and is overwhelming their lives."
Sooo sexy.
"Some members of the EA suffer from xenomelia (Johnson & Irwig, 2014), a neurological disorder that typically first expresses itself during childhood. Xenomelia is referred to as Body Integrity Identity Disorder in the psychiatric literature and is often coupled with erotic attraction to the amputation of an unrecognized limb. Those who suffer from xenomelia do not recognize certain body parts as being their own and, sometimes, attempt self-amputation of the limb in question (McGeoch, et al. 2011; Hilti, et al. 2013). It is thought that the erotic attraction is due to the ‘‘damaged wiring’’ of the sensory cortex of the right parietal lobe and is not considered a paraphilia (Hilti et al., 2013)."
Yeah baby. Hot as fuck.
He is definitely jerking off to these things. He studies how witnessing animal castration can contribute to ideation, and then goes online and sends people links to animal castration equipment, so that they can ideate with him.
Definitely definitely 100% :
he is 100% sexually attracted to specifically castrated minors
I have only circumstantial evidence.
You know soooo much.

And the joke is that all your speculation about his private life and secret emotions come after you had already decided and proclaimed that he is a boogeyman based solely on the titles of his scientific contributions (which by the way, have the expected references to the teams of scientists that co-authored them to various degrees, all of them part of this pizzagate I assume). It's your usual out-of-your-ass-and-circularly-rationalized-on-50-pages approach to everything. As always, you do not care one bit about reality, only about justifying retroactively any original position you felt good with.

In practice, you people simply require actual researchers in fringe sexualities to be monsters, in order to ignore scientific input for the profit of your merely "intuitive" beliefs, judgements and dogmas. It's worth being repeated at each one of your posts : you're a hypocrite, operating solely on empty rhetorics. And you're terribly commonplace (again, whichever the subject, be it about re-humanized transgenderism, innocuous expressions of muslim identity, or debunking of flat earth theories, any scientific discourse opposing reactionary views is dismissed by "it's one of them, IT IS ONE OF THEM").

So yes of course. Trans are perverts. Researchers in gender studies must be perverts too. It's pre-decided as nothing else would make sense in your system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,233
970
118
Country
USA
(which by the way, have the expected references to the teams of scientists that co-authored them to various degrees, all of them part of this pizzagate I assume).
You mean the same 2-4 people nearly every time? Is that the "teams of scientists" you're referring to?

I mean, I don't have evidence of them encouraging people to detach their testicles with equipment designed for cattle. They very well may be just curious people studying from afar. I'm clearly not saying that's impossible, as you've decided is my position, I'm the one here who made an account on the site to track down the guys posts. How insane would I have to be to think that anyone who looks into something is involved in the worst of it while actively looking into it myself?

Your accusations don't even make sense.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,169
4,933
118
Fox News had the gall to condemn him after he died, calling him an "evil, evil man" because he made kids feel special "when they didn't deserve it".


Because that's what it's all about. Keeping people "in their place", making sure they don't get what "they don't deserve".
Society has been sold that being kind and supportive, telling children they're special, will breed laziness. Hence why social security is bad, why school children shouldn't have free lunches, and why student debt shouldn't be forgiven. Only through suffering can people become great. Hard time create hard men. Because that's been going so well, hasn't it?
Again, only one side is actually doing the banning and it isn't the progressive.
Don't worry, he'll post a link about one lefty who did a thing once.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,157
6,409
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's not that it must be anything. We are considering a situation where we have extremely limited information, "adverse reactions are usually caused by bad things" is not illogical speculation.
In this case, said "adverse reactions" are just people objecting, though. And when you consider that to be a solid indicator that something must be wrong without a shred of actual info, then yeah, illogical speculation.

There are people who complain about literally any public visibility for LGBT+ people.

It's funny then. You could very easily say "ok, that guy's messed up, and including him in standards of care was negligent at best, but that's still very minor when criticizing an entire field of medicine." But you're not doing that, you're not ceding even the most minor of points, as though admitting there's even the possibility of some bad actors involved in the thing you defend would break the whole thing, even when you know that's not the case.
It's hardly "the most minor of points". You want to undermine someone's academic credibility because an online article speculated-- /speculated/-- they're the same person who posted some shit on a forum.

I mean, seriously. If a lefty publication speculated that some priest was posting about weird abusive porn, and then extrapolated that we can't trust a whole network of Churches because they associated with him, you'd be decrying the absurdity of it and strenuously preaching caution because we literally don't know if he actually did it.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
the recent poor imitation of fox news pushed in UK here can't even muster a coherent insult for Kathy Burke. So also incompetent and witless as well as ignorant opportunitistic kunts then.
At thus we see what happens when someone working class doesn't say what the far right think working class people should be saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlaydette