LGBTQiwis

[NoCockatrice]

It's just sad to live in a world where so many hateful retards would punish others on such basis, even when the person is completely innocent and just trying to live their life normally.

Well, that's the way it always was. And always will be, perhaps. Live's cruel and all that.

 

[California Newt]

Do you know what this forum is known for too? This forum believes homosexuality is as big of a depraved, perverted, appalling mental illness as transsexuality. So I don't think you should pull this argument here, it feels a little bit hypocritical.

That doesn't follow. He's under no obligation to say he unilaterally likes every group under the "LGBT+" umbrella just because other people dislike all of them.

There's no "hypocrisy"; you're just trying to enforce a false sense of solidarity.

 

[NoCockatrice]

you're just trying to enforce a false sense of solidarity.

This is literally what Sandshrew does when she talks about me and ultra left troons, as if we're the same thing.

And I think that's what Raging Capybara pointed out as well.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

That doesn't follow. He's under no obligation to say he unilaterally likes every group under the "LGBT+" umbrella just because other people dislike all of them.

There's no "hypocrisy"; you're just trying to enforce a false sense of solidarity.

You called LGBT the "pedophilic paradigm". You're no stranger to unhinged generalisations when it's convenient for you.

 

[California Newt]

This is literally what Sandshrew does when she talks about me and ultra left troons, as if we're the same thing.

That would be a false equivalency—different word. unless Sandshrew is saying that you and other trannies (edit: it occurs to me that that word could be interpreted as incendiary—not my intention) have an obligation to band together and support one another, she (I'll assume it's a real woman) is not enforcing false solidarity.

 

[California Newt]

You called LGBT the "pedophilic paradigm". You're no stranger to unhinged generalisations when it's convenient for you.

Sorry for the double-post; you posted this just as I sent.

Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy—"no u") is a logical fallacy, but here's the full explanation of the statement you're referring to (in its most developed form):

If you go into the "Serious LGBT Discussion" thread, you'll notice something interesting. While a lot of the gays in there dodge and deny the chomo question—they're allergic to per-capita, predictably—something even more interesting happens when you ask them to give an account of what childhood innocence is and why it's important: they all refuse to answer it.

They'll give all kinds of reasons for why grooming and molestation are bad: power imbalance; lack of consent; trauma—but never anything about innocence. Why is that? The reason is simple: they have no concept of it. They pretty much all see the stuff they got into in their early years as "positive formative experiences".

The reality is that in their minds, if it could be done "safely", without "trauma" or "power imbalance", there'd be no inherent problem with it. They might have a problem with EPI pedos pushing porn onto 11 year olds, but not with 11-year-olds finding the stuff on their own. That's what happened to them, after all, and they "turned out fine".

The purpose of the concept of childhood innocence, at least in this context, is that it lets you develop a healthy inner emotional world independent of that stuff. Gays have never known that world, and they (if they're unapologetic) actively deny its value.

This is the sense in which I mean that LGBT is paradigmatically pederastic.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

You're a pathological liar. You directly said that being gay is pipeline to pedophilia. Seriously, what type of "discussion" can you even expect after that? Fuck off already, furfag.

It doesn't work that way, but good luck trying to tell them that. It's like trying to tell a TERF that they opened the door for trannies in the first place. It's actually the exact same pattern, with a radfem-to-pooner pipeline to mirror the gay-to-pedo pipeline and everything. The presuppositions of the next stage are contained within the current stage. Barring isolated miracles (if a third party is reading this, maybe it's you), they'll never get it

 

[California Newt]

You're a pathological liar. You directly said that being gay is pipeline to pedophilia. Seriously, what type of "discussion" can you even expect after that?

Where's the lie or inconsistency, exactly? What you've quoted is consistent with what I quoted. The TERF paradigm has holes that develop into poonerism, and the gay paradigm has holes that develop into pedo-ism. It's obviously not guaranteed for each individual, but it's clear that if taken to their logical conclusion that those paradigms devolve into what I described.

This still has nothing to do with the Sandshrew discussion: you failed to make a point there.

Fuck off already, furfag.

Am I not an LGBTkiwi? Are you expelling me from my home?

Edit: It just occurred to me that I may be causing an unhelpful amount of discomfort relative to how much communication is happening. I'll make myself scarce and keep things lighter unless people want to engage with what's been posted.

 

[NoCockatrice]

It just occurred to me that I may be causing an unhelpful amount of discomfort relative to how much communication is happening. I'll make myself scarce and keep things lighter unless people want to engage with what's been posted.

Holy shit, can you just talk like a normal human being and not a smug redditor-ass pseudo-intellectual, who thinks fancy words are gonna make him win an argument?

That would be a false equivalency—different word.

Still makes her a hypocrite, so Capybara was right.

I'm not writing rape fantasies about "raping TERFs and transphobic lesbians into liking girlcock". You clearly haven't seen the hundreds of screenshots of MTFs making literal rape threats toward women.

Stop pretending all trannies are the same type of trannies. Even people who don't believe dysphoria is a thing do acknowledge there are different types of trannies (they mainly divide them into AGPs and Ultrahomos (I don't remember the exact term)).

Even Null said there are different types of trannies.

MTFs making literal rape threats toward women.

These don't have dysphoria, these are rapists who fake the condition to use it as a political shield.


Speaking of rape fantasies:
Ever been to Animal Control? 99% of the zoosadist thread people are gay. So are gays evil now, judging by your logic? And, by your own words, that makes you a part of the problem.


Should I even bring up the lesbian spousal abuse rates?

 

[VeteranOfTheRetardWars]

All I'm saying is that I'm more surprised when a gay is a furry than when a furry is gay.
Same with most other weird shit tbh, it's like squares and rectangles.

 

[NoCockatrice]

than when a furry is gay.

It's really like a factory setting for them isn't it?

 

[Soso]

All I'm saying is that I'm more surprised when a gay is a furry than when a furry is gay.

The second I hear that someone is a furry, I expect them to be into all sorts of strange shit.

 

[NoCockatrice]

Where do you see yourselves in the future?

-Family
-Career (won't specify, 'cause I don't want to be fired for sperging on the farms)
-Being a providing loving husband and father.
-Living in the middle of nowhere and enjoying nature.

 

[California Newt]

Still makes her a hypocrite, so Capybara was right.

It doesn't. It "feeling" hypocritical (your words) to  you isn't the same as it actually  being hypocritical.

It's not  automatically hypocritical to write off one group while disallowing others from writing off your own: it depends on  why you don't allow other groups to write you off. If @Sandshrew said that nobody can write lesbians off for any reason, then she'd be a hypocrite. Maybe she's said that elsewhere, I don't know—but she hasn't said that in the posts that we're talking about.

She'd only be a hypocrite if lesbians did all of the things that she accuses trannies of doing (and at similar rates). What other people say about lesbians is irrelevant.

Holy shit, can you just talk like a normal human being

Good question.

 

[Sirius]

I have a feeling I'm walking on eggshells here with the nature of this thread and everything, but... is it wrong to treat faggotry in a similar manner to a neurological disorder? Something that can't really be cured, but with effort can be managed. In my mind that seems to be the most pragmatic viewpoint, because 20th century conversion therapy often just caused more problems but in the modern world you're supposed to just embrace being a sodomite retard.
I see a lot of similarities between how a certain portion of the population thinks about autism & also homosexuality. Usually these people want you to "feel free to heckin express yourself", which isn't really a good idea to me. But the way they've (in some cases) tried to lump the two together got me thinking, I guess.

And to be clear: by "treat", I don't mean taking medication or getting some bullshit therapist. I mean the part you have to do yourself, like how spergs gradually learn to mask and figure out how to act if they aren't too far gone.

 

[California Newt]

I have a feeling I'm walking on eggshells here with the nature of this thread and everything, but... is it wrong to treat faggotry in a similar manner to a neurological disorder? Something that can't really be cured, but with effort can be managed. In my mind that seems to be the most pragmatic viewpoint, because 20th century conversion therapy often just caused more problems but in the modern world you're supposed to just embrace being a sodomite retard.
I see a lot of similarities between how a certain portion of the population thinks about autism & also homosexuality. Usually these people want you to "feel free to heckin express yourself", which isn't really a good idea to me. But the way they've (in some cases) tried to lump the two together got me thinking, I guess.

And to be clear: by "treat", I don't mean taking medication or getting some bullshit therapist. I mean the part you have to do yourself, like how spergs gradually learn to mask and figure out how to act if they aren't too far gone.

You might prefer "Serious LGBT Discussion". There's a lot fewer eggshells over there; at least that's the impression I get. It'd be cool to have those kinds of conversations in both, though.

Do you mean attraction to men, or lack of attraction to women? I don't know what causes the latter (maybe it's trauma in some people and a hormonal problem in others—I don't know), but for the former I don't think it's actually all that hard for most people to wrap their heads around.

It's kind of like incest. I'm sure most men could find immediate or extended family members attractive if they allowed themselves to—maybe they had a dream or two about it even—but would never allow themselves to give the idea any attention. It becomes such an ingrained habit of avoiding the subject that the thought never occurs to us. I think gay stuff works the same way largely.

I know exactly what you mean about autism. It makes it almost impossible to find resources online: you go on YouTube and all you get is miles-upon-miles of affirmation-slop. You just have to grind on voice-chats and join progressively less autistic groups to talk to people.

I think it's similar with gay stuff as you're implying as far as how to relate to other men goes, but a problem there is that our culture isn't normal in that regard—it's part of how this stuff got a foothold in the West in the first place. You can probably get most of the way there, but we also need to supplement that with a more normal model from outside of our culture (I think).

As far as resources for that go, I've been finding good stuff:

Following up from the "brother-making" book:

The sections on paired monasticism and teacher-disciple relationships was interesting, as was the explanation of homosociality in Byzantium. The footnotes were extremely useful, as they pointed to a number of books more squarely focused on male-male interactions in late antiquity.

One of these was an analysis of St. Gregory the Theologian's funerary oratory for St. Basil the Great:

5 J. Børtnes, “Eros Transformed: Same-Sex Love and Divine Desire. Reflections on the Erotic Vocabulary in St. Gregory of Nazianzus’s Speech on St. Basil the Great,” in Greek Biography andPanegyric, ed. Hägg and Rousseau, 180–93.

An excerpt from said oration:

Again:

I can understand why a lot of people today don't know that something like this is even possible.
This is a messy thought, but I wonder if part of the problem is that our culture assumes a crypto-"magical" world-view, where pursuit of the "highest principle" is self-directed and inherently involves the manipulation of sexual energies.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Career (won't specify, 'cause I don't want to be fired for sperging on the farms)

I think this is irrelevant for you to hide, assuming your real name is never connected to your account. But if it is at any point, it won't matter you disclosing what it is, they'll just check that your IRL name is tied to NoCockatrice, and then your other posts.

In essence, if you want to be in law enforcement/whatever it does not matter if you say it, as long as NoCockatrice remains a mystery.

 

[Sirius]

Do you mean attraction to men, or lack of attraction to women?

Well, I hate to say this but in my case it started out as the latter before gradually turning into the former. I could write a giant essay about "muh heckin' life" though I'm sure that's not something I should do.

I think isolation probably had a lot to do with it for me too, and I'm sure that's a common thing especially among late Gen Z people like myself. That and the unfortunate reality of having unrestricted Internet access. I've "reformed" myself to a great degree, obviously not entirely though.

I think it's similar with gay stuff as you're implying as far as how to relate to other men goes, but a problem there is that our culture isn't normal in that regard—it's part of how this stuff got a foothold in the West in the first place. You can probably get most of the way there, but we also need to supplement that with a more normal model from outside of our culture (I think)

I see what you mean, sort of. Well, on a level I can't really find the words for, but it does click in my head.
Like with autism again, an easy way to tell if someone is being genuine when it comes to them being gay or not is to see how they feel about it. Because while a bit of self-acceptance is crucial to not, you know, being miserable, I'm fairly confident that most people who really are gay aren't proud of it. I've talked to a few people in my situation and we all shared a very similiar sentiment of wanting to just live a normal life and being unburdened from this... ailment of sorts.
Hell, I'll likely get torn to shreds for saying this: I think the general 1990s American viewpoint of "don't ask, don't tell" or "just tolerate them" was actually a step in the right direction. Not without major flaws, but preferable in my mind. I don't know. Apologies for the rambling by the way.

I'll be sure to look into what you linked as well. Seems like an interesting perspective.

 

[alogatog]

Hell, I'll likely get torn to shreds for saying this: I think the general 1990s American viewpoint of "don't ask, don't tell" or "just tolerate them" was actually a step in the right direction. Not without major flaws, but preferable in my mind. I don't know.

DADT and "tolerate them" are two very different viewpoints. While I do reasonably kindof maybe partially agree that the concept of DADT is good, its one of those things that sounds good on paper but works bad in practice.
DADT is meant to be like a kind of middle ground- yet in reality, all it does is silence voices and cause more harm than good. It creates a climate of fear, and actively pushes against the rights of gay people. Without a voice, they cannot argue for their own treatment or equal rights.

Spoiler: semi off-topic

yes, gay people deserve the same rights as straight people and if you argue with me on that you're more of a faggot than me and should be hung by jumper cables for being so retarded.

Apologies for the rambling by the way.

No need to apologize. You will pay for every word with one lash to the balls

 

[California Newt]

Well, I hate to say this but in my case it started out as the latter before gradually turning into the former. I could write a giant essay about "muh heckin' life" though I'm sure that's not something I should do.

You're correct. Incidentally, I've always been very attracted to women. For some odd reason people have found that hard to believe.

Like with autism again, an easy way to tell if someone is being genuine when it comes to them being gay or not is to see how they feel about it. Because while a bit of self-acceptance is crucial to not, you know, being miserable, I'm fairly confident that most people who really are gay aren't proud of it. I've talked to a few people in my situation and we all shared a very similiar sentiment of wanting to just live a normal life and being unburdened from this... ailment of sorts.
Hell, I'll likely get torn to shreds for saying this: I think the general 1990s American viewpoint of "don't ask, don't tell" or "just tolerate them" was actually a step in the right direction. Not without major flaws, but preferable in my mind. I don't know. Apologies for the rambling by the way.

Self-loathing is never healthy; I agree with you there. Ive heard it described as inverted pride. I think a better way to look at it is to ask "what's the best possible way to exist" and try to subtract everything that isn't that (as a process of growth over time), rather than to define yourself in terms of what you're running away from.

That way, you start to ask much more interesting questions.

I'll be sure to look into what you linked as well. Seems like an interesting perspective.

Sweet.

You may also want to look into the terms logismi and  nepsis, which are from the same tradition as the men in that excerpt: they relate to a mental discipline that sounds like the kind of thing you're asking about.

Spoiler: Fun factoid

As an aside, the men in that excerpt are two of the three "Cappadocians"—the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council whose definition of the Trinity made it into the Nicano-Constantinopolitan Creed. I only bring that up because if you don't know you might think those are just some fringe guys nobody ever heard of, but no.