Funny events in anti-woke world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,085
3,530
118
Country
United Kingdom
Grad school?

Edit for details: the memoir we are discussing came about as a result of an autobiography class taken while pursuing a masters degree. The page talking about how universal gay fanfiction was among her friendships explicitly includes grad school in that timeline, including the expression "I thought gay porn was UNIVERSAL", immediately following the depiction of grad school and matching the hair style depicted in the grad school panel. So the author could tie discussions of gay porn into friendships universally while beginning work on what would become this book.

This is not a book about awkward teenage years for an awkward teenage audience. The author has stated explicitly the book was intended to be read by adults. Most of the adult scenarios in the book are depicting events from the author's adult life. The book got into schools because it was given an Alex Award, which goes to "books written for adults that have special appeal to young adults, ages 12 through 18."
OK. Whatever. I'd point out that "universal" is obviously playful exaggeration but there's not much point anymore; Believe what you want about this particular book. You were going to anyway, because in your mind queer people talking about sex are "perverts" and "sex obsessed".

D'you wanna address the fact that the "banned books" list to which the teacher provided a nudge has hundreds of other books on it, including beloved classics, and has been nationally promoted for years without issue? Including in religious schools in years past?
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,568
944
118
Country
The Netherlands
Review Tech USA is also under my shit list too. He's not anti-woke exactly, but he's done shady crap in the past, and encouraged the harassment of another YouTube user that had done nothing wrong to him or anyone else. Rich tries to come off as a "deep and sensitive" average joe, but he's just another loud mouth, tabloid spreading, egotistical, rumor gossiping, know nothing know it all, jackass. He no longer even reviews technology nor computer parts. He stopped doing that by 2014. The review tech is in-name only. Has been for nearly a decade now.
That surprises me a bit. I came across some of his videos years ago and he struck me as among the blandest youtubers imaginable, so I assumed he was consistently milktoast and uncontroversial without much of his own opinions. He came across as someone just parroting the already popular opinions a lot.

Also I found it highly annoying that all his videos started with him yelling.....''skipemdebabababab?''
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
18,161
2,564
118
One thing I find kinda funny with the anti woke world is the name they give themselves.

Geeks and Gamers, Nerdrotic, Justsomeguy. All names rather transparently chosen to make it seem as if they're just average joes giving you an insight about what the ''real fans'' are thinking.
That's probably because that's how they started out; just regular youtube channels talking about nerd shit. Then Anita Sarkeesian and Gamer Gate happened...
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,472
1,107
118
Country
United Kingdom
It would be wrong of me to say without experience that I would not enjoy such a thing. Many other men have enjoyed sex with men, there is likelihood I could as well.
Do you feel that you are "oppressed" or "restricted" by your own unwillingness to have sex with men? Is this sufficient to motivate you to do it?

Do you feel that your life is "tragic" because your own preferences are preventing you from doing something you might enjoy?

Do you think I am psychologically healthier or morally better than you because I lack this particular form of "self-oppression" that you suffer from?

Do you think children should be denied access to any media that presents a life like yours as normal, healthy or acceptable, and that the only life pattern that should be presented to children in these terms is sexually-permissive, non-binary, non-monogamous pansexuality?

So, as fun as it is, let's identify the problem here. What you're calling "self-oppression" is what Freudians call "repression", it's the process by which conscious thoughts or desires are rendered unconscious. A newborn human is motivated purely by pleasure, it doesn't care where pleasure comes from, and thus our adult sexuality is the result of repression placing limits on our undifferentiated infant sexuality.

A common misunderstanding of Freudianism is that repression is unhealthy and its absence is healthy or liberating, but this is completely incorrect. Repression is necessary in order to maintain a coherent sense of self, to integrate into a society and to avoid being debilitated by psychological trauma. What is unhealthy, for Freudians, is when repression is excessive or partial, resulting in inner conflict that manifests externally in various mental and physical illnesses. That seems to be what you are alleging is occurring here, but there's absolutely no absolutely no evidence to suggest that the person you are talking about is any less healthy or more neurotic than you are.

Since I'm going to assume at least some of the reasons you won't have sex with men are related to religion, let's ask one last question. Do you refuse to have sex with men because it's against your religion, or are you religious because it allows you to project any ambivalence over your desire to have sex with men onto the universe by imagining a magic dad who will punish you if you do?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
18,161
2,564
118
Do you have children? I do not have (and do not want) children. And yet my brother has children and is very happy. How can we both possibly be right?!
It's because the feminist socialists made you not want to have kids. If not for their evil ways...
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
17,010
6,712
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
He came across as someone just parroting the already popular opinions a lot.
Exactly the other reason why I dropped his sorry ass. This video is the one where Rich attacked another YouTube user for just being a regular Nintendo fan and wearing a Yoshi at an E3 Convention in 2014! The user's name is Yoshiller. Rich has never apologized and tried quickly sweep it under the rug. Yoshiller got death threats for a month, and they only stopped until assholes had their fill and move on to something else nontroversy to be pissed off about.

 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
4,924
772
118
Country
USA
D'you wanna address the fact that the "banned books" list to which the teacher provided a nudge has hundreds of other books on it, including beloved classics, and has been nationally promoted for years without issue? Including in religious schools in years past?
It was nationally promoted for years because it was filled with beloved classics being challenged for questionable reasons. Things like banning To Kill a Mockingbird because of the n-word, as though that book promotes racism. It's not like that anymore.

10 years ago, their top 10 list of challenged books was made up almost entirely of classic novels and pop culture hits. And I can appreciate both viewpoints there, the people who think there should be open access to Brave New World or the Hunger Games, and the people who take them out of elementary schools because it's not appropriate for all ages. The list isn't like that anymore, instead it's dominated by social activism, books that got into schools not because they were beloved by many, but because social activists decided that young people ought to read them. It's no longer fueled by youth wanting to read Harry Potter, but rather by adults wanting to feed them Gender Queer.

Repression is necessary in order to maintain a coherent sense of self.
Why is that a good thing? What is the benefit of rationalizing an identity for yourself?
Since I'm going to assume at least some of the reasons you won't have sex with men are related to religion, let's ask one last question. Do you refuse to have sex with men because it's against your religion, or are you religious because it allows you to project any ambivalence over your desire to have sex with men onto the universe by imagining a magic dad who will punish you if you do?
There is just one person that I want to sleep with. That person is not a man. I have found a situation that gives me joy, and it is one that precludes pursuing other options. I would not categorize this as refusing to have sex with men, I am not blindly following a religious mandate, I am not basing my behavior on a specific heterosexual self-image. I met a girl and felt eternity, and I would chase that feeling to the ends of the earth. If a man meets a man and feels that same thing, go for it!

That is not the experience of Gender Queer. It's not about love. It's about the author changing behavior to try and mold a self-image into reality, and trying to figure out who else is interesting based on what aesthetic boxes they check. Neither of those are healthy things, it's all objectification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
13,826
4,730
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅

Am guessing he's one of those "Dr's of theology" types, otherwise the entry bar must be worryingly low.
What, is he playing "buzzword bingo" or something? And how confident is he when he's saying "through maybe 5G"?

Can one of these conspiracy theorists tell me how microchips small enough to be injected through a needle somehow manage to find their way into the proper parts of the brain and receive enough power through wi-fi transmissions to operate? Oh, wait, I'm thinking scientifically instead of succumbing to galloping paranoia; my bad.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,930
1,523
118
What, is he playing "buzzword bingo" or something? And how confident is he when he's saying "through maybe 5G"?

Can one of these conspiracy theorists tell me how microchips small enough to be injected through a needle somehow manage to find their way into the proper parts of the brain and receive enough power through wi-fi transmissions to operate? Oh, wait, I'm thinking scientifically instead of succumbing to galloping paranoia; my bad.
Yeah, that's not just bad, that's embarrassingly stupid. Even if people are going to be wilfully ignorant enough to believe you whatever you say, you can still put some effort into your lies for the sake of professional pride. Demagogues that hoodwink massive amounts of people are supposed to be clever and charismatic, not total no hopers who've lucked out with people desperately wanting to be hoodwinked.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,085
3,530
118
Country
United Kingdom
It was nationally promoted for years because it was filled with beloved classics being challenged for questionable reasons. Things like banning To Kill a Mockingbird because of the n-word, as though that book promotes racism. It's not like that anymore.

10 years ago, their top 10 list of challenged books was made up almost entirely of classic novels and pop culture hits. And I can appreciate both viewpoints there, the people who think there should be open access to Brave New World or the Hunger Games, and the people who take them out of elementary schools because it's not appropriate for all ages. The list isn't like that anymore, instead it's dominated by social activism, books that got into schools not because they were beloved by many, but because social activists decided that young people ought to read them. It's no longer fueled by youth wanting to read Harry Potter, but rather by adults wanting to feed them Gender Queer.
In short, it's filled with things you don't like or respect.

To put it bluntly: that's quite closely related to the core point of the list. If the "banned books" list only contained things that are now considered uncontroversial... it would be utterly pointless.

Gender Queer is on there because it was the most objected-to, most banned book over a particular period. It exactly fits the criteria and entire reason for the list's existence. It's literally the point.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,525
4,582
118
Country
United States
So if you're terminally online like me and was wondering where James O'Keefe and Project Veritas were while Matt Walsh and Libs of TikTok were harassing children's hospitals, turns out they were in court, losing

 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
4,924
772
118
Country
USA
In short, it's filled with things you don't like or respect.

To put it bluntly: that's quite closely related to the core point of the list. If the "banned books" list only contained things that are now considered uncontroversial... it would be utterly pointless.

Gender Queer is on there because it was the most objected-to, most banned book over a particular period. It exactly fits the criteria and entire reason for the list's existence. It's literally the point.
Gender Queer is not Catcher in the Rye, Silvanus.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,085
3,530
118
Country
United Kingdom
Gender Queer is not Catcher in the Rye, Silvanus.
Hilariously, you've made a reply which highlights your own mistake in an effort to be pithy.

If the list was only classics, or works now considered uncontroversial, it would be completely pointless. Strenuously objecting to the content of books on a banned book list is self-defeating: content that some people don't like is the point.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,472
1,107
118
Country
United Kingdom
Why is that a good thing? What is the benefit of rationalizing an identity for yourself?
Because an identity is what allows you to exist as an individual within the world.

A newborn baby doesn't have a conscious mind. It has senses and it can feel, but it can't make sense of any of the things it feels. It experiences pleasure when feeding, but it can't distinguish between the object giving the pleasure and the body receiving it. It isn't aware of having a body at all.

At some point in human development that baby becomes conscious of a distinction between itself and the world around it. It realizes that the thing that gives it pleasure is outside of itself, and by extension it begins to develop the understanding that it is a distinct object. At around two years old, it begins to recognize this object (its body) in a mirror. By around four or five years old, it has begun to develop a basic theory of mind. It understands that it has internal thoughts which are distinct from its external body, and on a very basic level that the bodies around it also have internal thoughts. Thus, it can figure out that the body it sees in the mirror is what other people see when they look at it. It is a unique individual among other unique individuals, similar to them but not exactly the same as them.

Identity isn't just a set of arbitrary categories that we place ourselves in, it is a basic, fundamental and involuntary recognition of our position within the world. That five year old child knows whether it has been assigned as male or female based on the appearance of its body. It knows that it is supposed to be similar to people of the same sex and a distinct from people of the opposite sex, and because children are finely-honed machines for observing and learning behavior, it can also infer from the behavior of those around it what this distinction means for its position in the world.

That child is also, in all likelihood, already well on the way to figuring out how it feels about that position.

To be a person, you also need to not be any other person. That is a "restriction" and you could, if you wanted, frame it as "repressive", but doing so is ultimately meaningless because there isn't any alternative to being a person. Other than dying, I guess.

I have found a situation that gives me joy, and it is one that precludes pursuing other options.
Perhaps you could deign to credit others with the same ability.

Queer life is harder in some ways and some people break under that hardness, but it can also be extremely joyful, liberating, empowering and beautiful. It is a life none of us chose but which is worth choosing.

Think about it this way. You may not actually like the social visibility of queer people, but you need us. You need us because if we didn't exist and if we weren't visible you would have nothing to measure yourself against. You can only pretend to be "normal" or claim this bizarre value you place on being part of the majority as long as there is a minority.

We, however, had to get used to not being normal. We had to build a self and a happiness separate from the value placed on normality, and as a result we don't need to define ourselves in relation to you. You are dependent on us, but we don't need you at all.

The fact that you live in fear that "normal" people will repress their own identities out of existence by pretending to be queer or trans, to the point of suffering discrimination and hardship, is just telling on yourself. If you really believed that your life was joyful, if you really believed that it was sufficient to make you happy, you shouldn't need to worry about that.

I met a girl and felt eternity, and I would chase that feeling to the ends of the earth.
Me too.

That emotion does not require you to have sex with someone, and it certainly doesn't require you to only have sex with someone. I certainly don't see how it justifies intentionally living a "tragic" existence.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,729
2,251
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
So, I went to a Catholic Highschool

I remember there was a short program in grade 9 (or maybe 10), lasting maybe a term. It was like a sex ed/ relationships class

We discussed terms like rape and how not to do it. How to treat partners well and safe sex stuff like condoms. We discussed consent, listening to sexual partners and how there were multiple 'holes' in a vagina but only one suitable for a penis. I personally think it should have also discussed general relationship advice instead of just the physical so much, but I digress. Those were incredibly informative classes

They didn't have same sex discussions because A) Catholic B) this is only a decade out from when homosexuality was unbanned. But, I could imagine that today there might be same sex discussion in the same program. I would also hope something like Gender Queer would be part of this program today. You're already seeing and discussing explict material that Gender Queer would look tame so I wouldn't see it out of place

But, I'm very aware that some countries think that telling kids what rape is and how NOT to do it is a crime against humanity. Or pretend that Gender Queer is pornography instead of just nudity