coatimundi [none/use name]
Are you guys seriously all paying attention to this guy while Théoden son of whomever mourns the death of his son?
It really feels like people don’t even make these thinking that someone is going to fall for them and google the thing and learn something new anymore.
More fuel for the long-standing theory that people in the 21st century pick their politics mostly out of vague aesthetic identification. This case being representative of the new “TERF” identity, which hegemonic left-liberal culture vaguely codes as woman-positive but also right-wing and anglophilic, see the profile picture.
The way I see it labor aristocrats are more often atheist and poor people are religious and churchgoing.
I feel like it’s silly to act like there’s any chance of that happening. Black people have only ever gotten progressively more integrated into American society even during Republican governments, and the trend is for that to continue. It seems to me like the observed trend is for mainstream Republicans to adopt a civic nationalist discourse that frames African Americans as an integral part of America and makes symbolic concessions to black identity.
Here he’s saying that sex was never non-antagonistic, right? What does this mean?
That it was always antagonistic.
I’m just confused by this. What does he mean by “women know/don’t know what they want”? Is this related to consent, in that, women don’t know if they want to consent? They don’t know if they want sexual interaction?
He means that women don’t just look at a random guy and think oh, I want him because of this and this and this and by extension I will reliably want any man in any circumstance who is like this and this and this. When they want it, it’s highly circumstantial and hard to translate into epistemic language.
Is he saying that women don’t know if they want to consent or not but after having sex they like it and thus consent retroactively?
He’s saying that the ambiguity is a big part of the mystique of sex particularly for women. He thinks that women having to state that they explicitly want X Y and Z kills it for them.
Umm, so…sometimes women play hard to get and men should force themselves on them?
He’s saying that just because someone “officially” wants something doesn’t mean they really want it. I.e. women who “want” to get raped don’t really want to get raped, they just want to fantasize about getting raped.
The only form of sex that fully fits the politically correct criteria is a sado-masochist contract. How???
Because it’s the only way you can fulfill the idea of epistemic consent while at the same time having an element of thrill and unpredictability. Basically, you’re epistemically consenting to have things done to you that you don’t have to epistemically consent to.
There’s historical precedent, too. During the Bush years, people would get called misogynists for opposing the Iraq war because the US government was allegedly going to turn Iraq into a modern liberal democracy and liberate the local women from traditionalist religious oppression. And if you didn’t think that was doable, you’d get called a racist because you’d be implying Arabs were inherently less capable of being decent people than Americans. At least that’s what I hear from people on the internet who say they’re old enough to have been aware of politics back then.
Consider the fact that the reason why people portray this line of thinking as bad is mostly because it’s used by people they don’t like against people they like, and not because it’s intrinsically a bad thing.