George Orwell was one of the great writers of the 20th century and has a remarkable moral track record. Unlike practically every one of his contemporaries, he was - as Christopher Hitchens famously adduced - correct on the three great political issues of his time: opposed to imperialism, opposed to fascism, and opposed to Stalinism. George Orwell was also in many ways closed-minded and pettily reactionary. He was casually anti-semitic, was something pretty close to an incel avant la lettre, and in common with most people of his generation, was essentially homophobic. Here is a famous excerpt from the conclusion of perhaps the finest single piece of writing in his oeuvre. (Some source italics omitted because /pt/). > In a way it is even humiliating to watch coal-miners working. It raises in you a momentary doubt about your own status as an 'intellectual' and a superior person generally. For it is brought home to you, at least while you are watching, that it is only because miners sweat their guts out that superior persons can remain superior. You and I and the editor of the Times Lit. Supp., and the nancy poets and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Comrade X, author of Marxism for Infants—all of us really owe the comparative decency of our lives to poor drudges underground, blackened to the eyes, with their throats full of coal dust, driving their shovels forward with arms and belly muscles of steel. Now this is fantastic stuff, and its message is one that still seems to evade many 'leftists' today. Every self-described communist, or leftist, or radical who witters on about UBI or mutual aid while using such services as DoorDash would do well to consider its implications. But I don't want to discuss that, I want to discuss the one ugly word that the modern reader cannot help but trip up over. The rather dated slur 'nancy' may no longer pack the punch of today's 'faggot', but it is essentially equivalent. If you doubt this, note that its usage here is a callback to a previous reference to 'Nancy poets', who, Orwell writes, with sardonic euphemism, 'scratch one another's backs'. To my mind, there is nothing admirable (or, in the modern parlance, based) about this needless prejudice of Orwell's. It is a little crueller when one realises that he is not talking about homosexual poets as an abstraction, but a specific poetical set - Auden, Spender, and Isherwood (see picrel) - whom he held in personal and specific disdain. Rather, it is simply the mark of a human, flawed and limited, just like all the rest of us. It would be unimpressive if Orwell had been so perceptive simply because he was a Christlike figure of moral perfection. In fact, Orwell's moral excellence was the achievement of a blazing intellect that, despite being born into the same sort of blinkered petty bourgeois environment that was to produce legions of Nazis and Blimps in his generation, nonetheless managed to fight its way to the right conclusions, most of the time. The fact that Orwell was unreformed about gays, unreformed about women, was only proof that he was a man. Ecco homo! What a shame then to see that in so many places this excusable failing, this mild stain of non-divinity, is erased. A search for the phrase: > "and the poets and the archbishop of canterbury" or its counterpart: > "the poets may scratch one another's backs" ...will readily yield reams of results. Largely these results are from po-faced 'Marxist reading group' type websites, which can seemingly abide the incoherence of 'the poets' as a definite noun phrase, but draw the line at exposing their readers to the minor thought-crimes of a man born in imperial India one month after the invention of the aeroplane. What an irony, given that Orwell's most significant (not to mention eponymous) contribution to the world of ideas is the vision of a world in which all of history, and with it all of writing, is subject to eternal revision at the behest of a political authority which fundamentally does not trust people with the right to use their own brains.
Orwell and Homophobia :
Anonymous :
15 days ago :
No.11489
>>11511
>>11489 (OP)
well, i don’t think it was a throwaway remark, in fact it’s pretty fitting; just like you can’t write poetry without someone mining the coal, it’s only possible to be gay because your parents took it upon themselves to punch the clock. so yes you’re free riding on the tree of life in a way
>>11528>>11489 (OP)
>Orwell writes, with sardonic euphemism, 'scratch one another's backs'
Are you sure this is meant as a sexual euphemism? It's a common phrase with a predominantly non-sexual connotation. I hear the same complaint in literary scenes now, except in the common sense of that phrase, about people who publish who publishes them and their friends, or things like that. Poets congratulating each other isn't real work, seems to be the more obvious thing to take from that line. And I don't understand at all your complaint about the Archbishop line.
Are you ESL? Are you gay and easily agitated?
See:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you_scratch_my_back_and_I'll_scratch_yours
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quid_pro_quo#English
>>11535>>11489 (OP)
>nancy
Wait, that's it? If this is meant to establish that Orwell was unusually or deeply homophobic, then it's pretty thin. Apart from that, I think one can be reasonably homophobic in the sense that one can be reasonably islamophobic. I don't think there is anything wrong with phobias as long as they are empirically grounded.
The general all-or-nothing sentiment that has pervaded leftist spaces is so incredibly and mindnumbingly corrosive to praxis that it makes me wonder whether the left has been really been co-opted by historically-illiterate harpies (read: could be that retarded) or if it's all just a massive and very well coordinated CIA psy-op.
Anonymous :
15 days ago :
No.11491
>>11492
>>11491
He went to Eton. I think that certainly is an environment liable to produce the notion that homosexuality is a thing that males do, in a way that is essentially benign in adolescence, but that you should really grow out of as part of becoming a fully grown man.
I also enjoy Orwell but have been on the receiving end of his judgement too, as a sandal-wearing, fruit juice-drinking feminist (loosely speaking). I think it's part and parcel of reading great minds from past eras, and you either have the verve to jump over it or you don't. I think the core of it comes from the traditional view of homosexuality as an act, not as an innate identity-- the latter of which we have fully internalized even if we can recognize it as a push orchestrated by modern rights' groups. To wit, in many ways it IS an act, a continued choice. This policing comes particularly hard from men who can imagine themselves ~ in that position ~ but who put heterosexual 'ideals' over hedonism. I'm not calling Orwell closeted, but sorta kinda in that direction.
Anonymous :
15 days ago :
No.11492
>>11494
>>11492
Yes, it seems to be an extremely British phenomenon, the whole boys school thing.
>>11491
I also enjoy Orwell but have been on the receiving end of his judgement too, as a sandal-wearing, fruit juice-drinking feminist (loosely speaking). I think it's part and parcel of reading great minds from past eras, and you either have the verve to jump over it or you don't. I think the core of it comes from the traditional view of homosexuality as an act, not as an innate identity-- the latter of which we have fully internalized even if we can recognize it as a push orchestrated by modern rights' groups. To wit, in many ways it IS an act, a continued choice. This policing comes particularly hard from men who can imagine themselves ~ in that position ~ but who put heterosexual 'ideals' over hedonism. I'm not calling Orwell closeted, but sorta kinda in that direction.
He went to Eton. I think that certainly is an environment liable to produce the notion that homosexuality is a thing that males do, in a way that is essentially benign in adolescence, but that you should really grow out of as part of becoming a fully grown man.
>>11492
>>11491
He went to Eton. I think that certainly is an environment liable to produce the notion that homosexuality is a thing that males do, in a way that is essentially benign in adolescence, but that you should really grow out of as part of becoming a fully grown man.
Yes, it seems to be an extremely British phenomenon, the whole boys school thing.
>>11489 (OP)
well, i don’t think it was a throwaway remark, in fact it’s pretty fitting; just like you can’t write poetry without someone mining the coal, it’s only possible to be gay because your parents took it upon themselves to punch the clock. so yes you’re free riding on the tree of life in a way
Anonymous :
14 days ago :
No.11515
>>11518
>>11515
What are you quoting? This is savage but it does land some blows... I think there is a lot to critique in Orwell. Certainly this is true:
> His mind was sharp and intelligent, as well as aggressive and antiseptic.
>What Orwell wanted was a ‘rational’ attitude to the universe, the ‘decency’ that he found in Bertrand Russell, and the ‘quasi-instinctive siding with the oppressed’ which Dickens had retained from Christianity. He looked for an ‘organism’ which would be ‘greater than men’, and would provide a sense of brotherhood over time, like the brotherhood of beer and bawdy that had persisted for centuries among the ‘common people’, whether bishops and dissenting divines had approved of it or not. He praised Shakespearean normality, attacked Tolstoy and Gandhi (whom in a way he also admired) and, in this ‘Yogi-ridden age’ judged sanctity something that should be avoided.
>This was a ‘humanist’ attitude, and Orwell’s statement of it was by implication post- or anti-Christian, emphasizing the ‘sadness and loneliness’ of human life and the need for consolation, but explaining sin in terms of guilt about sex, and disparaging the selfishness and inhumanity of the saints by contrast with the human desire to ‘fasten one’s love upon other human individuals’.
>Orwell had little sense of the variety of forms that Christianity had taken in the past. He made monochrome assumptions, drew facile contrasts and assumed too readily that love and humanity were to be found exclusively in popular culture. His mind was sharp and intelligent, as well as aggressive and antiseptic. He had a lean, clean prose. He was grim and humourless, had a touch of sadism and, apart from the sadism and the high-quality prose, lacked most of the qualities that he admired in Waugh. Like Waugh, he saw failure everywhere among established classes and institutions. If he had lived, like Waugh, into the 1950s, he would probably have shared Waugh’s experience of producing new writing which was less significant than his writing had been in the past.
>Orwell was against ‘Them’ in the sense in which most men are against sin, but the ‘Us’ this implied was unconvincing, contained few women and no successful men, and, apart from a vaguely defined working class, consisted mainly of a Rousseauvian rag-bag of tramps and porters, Comstocks and Bowlings, and Winston Smith. In spite of the violence of his rhetoric, Orwell did not leave the impression of expecting the ‘impulse which had moved the Paris workers in 1793, the Communards in 1871, and the Madrid Trade
Unionists in 1936’, to come into its own in England.
>What are we left with? Not a realist œuvre, in spite of the rats and the truncheons, but an escapist one; the construction of an imagined world – a warm and nice world, like Tolkien’s world, in The Road to Wigan Pier, and in Nineteen Eighty-Four a world that was nastier than Swift’s – but indubitably a more escapist world than Waugh’s world and a curious register of Orwell’s death to middle-class respectability and his resurrection to the aversions which the ‘common people’ of England, like the ‘common people’ of Sir Keith Thomas’s England, were supposed to have felt for all attempts by their ‘betters’ to ‘improve’ them.
>Orwell had a nasty mind and, probably, a nasty body. It is one of the odder ironies of modern literature that a class-warrior or Swiftian sadist should for thousands of schoolchildren have become a hero of modern freedom.
>Orwell claimed that Nineteen Eighty-Four was an attack on the ‘perversions’ introduced into a ‘centralized economy’ by Communism and Fascism. But for anyone who interprets it as an affirmation of freedom, it must be problematical that O’Brien was both aware of, and immune to, the ‘promptings of humanity’, and that the Smith problem arose because, not being a prole, not being permitted to remember life before the catastrophe and being far too intelligent to be left to vegetate in solitude, he had had to be given the chance to feel as the élite needed to feel if the revolution was to be made permanent.
>In Nineteen Eighty-Four Orwell identified himself with ‘impulse and feeling’ and with so poignant a version of proletarian decency as to confine critical attention to the élite. It was the élite which was his subject, the élite which was trying to control thought and eliminate from history all those whose memories of pre-revolutionary thought-modes made them unreliable agents of the revolution. And it was Big Brother and Hate-Week, the Thought-Police and Newspeak, the Junior Anti-Sex League and ‘2 + 2 = 5’ – all of them inventions of the élite – which suggested that liberty was not worth having without a belief that was strong enough to sustain it.
>>11515
>What Orwell wanted was a ‘rational’ attitude to the universe, the ‘decency’ that he found in Bertrand Russell, and the ‘quasi-instinctive siding with the oppressed’ which Dickens had retained from Christianity. He looked for an ‘organism’ which would be ‘greater than men’, and would provide a sense of brotherhood over time, like the brotherhood of beer and bawdy that had persisted for centuries among the ‘common people’, whether bishops and dissenting divines had approved of it or not. He praised Shakespearean normality, attacked Tolstoy and Gandhi (whom in a way he also admired) and, in this ‘Yogi-ridden age’ judged sanctity something that should be avoided.
>This was a ‘humanist’ attitude, and Orwell’s statement of it was by implication post- or anti-Christian, emphasizing the ‘sadness and loneliness’ of human life and the need for consolation, but explaining sin in terms of guilt about sex, and disparaging the selfishness and inhumanity of the saints by contrast with the human desire to ‘fasten one’s love upon other human individuals’.
>Orwell had little sense of the variety of forms that Christianity had taken in the past. He made monochrome assumptions, drew facile contrasts and assumed too readily that love and humanity were to be found exclusively in popular culture. His mind was sharp and intelligent, as well as aggressive and antiseptic. He had a lean, clean prose. He was grim and humourless, had a touch of sadism and, apart from the sadism and the high-quality prose, lacked most of the qualities that he admired in Waugh. Like Waugh, he saw failure everywhere among established classes and institutions. If he had lived, like Waugh, into the 1950s, he would probably have shared Waugh’s experience of producing new writing which was less significant than his writing had been in the past.
>Orwell was against ‘Them’ in the sense in which most men are against sin, but the ‘Us’ this implied was unconvincing, contained few women and no successful men, and, apart from a vaguely defined working class, consisted mainly of a Rousseauvian rag-bag of tramps and porters, Comstocks and Bowlings, and Winston Smith. In spite of the violence of his rhetoric, Orwell did not leave the impression of expecting the ‘impulse which had moved the Paris workers in 1793, the Communards in 1871, and the Madrid Trade
Unionists in 1936’, to come into its own in England.
>What are we left with? Not a realist œuvre, in spite of the rats and the truncheons, but an escapist one; the construction of an imagined world – a warm and nice world, like Tolkien’s world, in The Road to Wigan Pier, and in Nineteen Eighty-Four a world that was nastier than Swift’s – but indubitably a more escapist world than Waugh’s world and a curious register of Orwell’s death to middle-class respectability and his resurrection to the aversions which the ‘common people’ of England, like the ‘common people’ of Sir Keith Thomas’s England, were supposed to have felt for all attempts by their ‘betters’ to ‘improve’ them.
>Orwell had a nasty mind and, probably, a nasty body. It is one of the odder ironies of modern literature that a class-warrior or Swiftian sadist should for thousands of schoolchildren have become a hero of modern freedom.
What are you quoting? This is savage but it does land some blows... I think there is a lot to critique in Orwell. Certainly this is true:
> His mind was sharp and intelligent, as well as aggressive and antiseptic.
>Orwell’s commitment to the war, once it began, was slightly crazy. He dismissed the possibility of a negotiated peace, attacked pacifists who wanted to impose moral restraints on military conduct and looked to Cripps, Lloyd George or even Beveridge to succeed Churchill after the fall of Singapore. When told that the war would come to an end in 1942, he wanted it to go on because peace would make revolution less likely.
>With one part of his mind Orwell wanted to keep hold of patriotism and public-school militarism in order to prove that ‘Socialism could be built on the bones of a Blimp’. With another part of his mind, he was the nastiest kind of class-warrior, announced that ‘the people’ would have to be ‘armed’ if the war was to become ‘revolutionary’ and, in the ‘conversations that were going on in a million pubs and air-raid shelters’, heard the promise of a Socialism which would be ‘willing to use violence if necessary’. His mind was saturated with class viciousness – about the titled ‘bitch’ whom a ship’s steward compelled to ‘take her turn in the queue’ during the evacuation from France, about the ‘corruption’ and ‘treachery’ with which the ‘rich swine’ would react to a German victory and about the prospect of ‘London gutters running with blood’ when the ‘red militias’ came to be billeted in the Ritz. He argued that the Labour Party should have made the Home Guard its private army, that ‘proletarians’ should not have been kept out of ‘positions of command’, and that even Churchill, who sometimes was and sometimes was not the English Danton, was trying to put out the revolutionary flames which had been lit at Dunkirk.
Anonymous :
14 days ago :
No.11521
>>11522
>>11521
if you give me the domain (no https:// prefix) I can add it to the whitelist
>>11525>>11521
I don’t think 1984 is a masterpiece but that review seemed a bit cheap. Most of his criticisms are about it being “bad science fiction” and I don’t think that’s what Orwell was trying to do. People are constantly attacking 1984 because it “didn’t come true” which is a very superficial way to read a book. It’s true that the worldbuilding is dated but to me that’s part of the vibe. I think there’s some literary merit to the gross shitty hopeless version of England in the story. As for whether it totally pwns capitalism or communism or whatever I don’t really care.
from isaac asimov's review of 1984
"-- The other is the heroine, Julia, who is sexually promiscuous (but is at least driven to courage by her interest in sex) and is otherwise brainless. When the hero, Winston, reads to her the book within a book that explains the nature of the Orwellian world, she responds by falling asleep - but then since the treatise Winston reads is stupefyingly soporific, this may be an
indication of Julia's good sense rather than the reverse."
yea its not relevant to this discussion but i find his review of 1984 very amusing and don't get the chance to share it very often. wanted to link the review but thats not allowed i think
>>11521
from isaac asimov's review of 1984
"-- The other is the heroine, Julia, who is sexually promiscuous (but is at least driven to courage by her interest in sex) and is otherwise brainless. When the hero, Winston, reads to her the book within a book that explains the nature of the Orwellian world, she responds by falling asleep - but then since the treatise Winston reads is stupefyingly soporific, this may be an
indication of Julia's good sense rather than the reverse."
yea its not relevant to this discussion but i find his review of 1984 very amusing and don't get the chance to share it very often. wanted to link the review but thats not allowed i think
if you give me the domain (no https:// prefix) I can add it to the whitelist
>>11521
from isaac asimov's review of 1984
"-- The other is the heroine, Julia, who is sexually promiscuous (but is at least driven to courage by her interest in sex) and is otherwise brainless. When the hero, Winston, reads to her the book within a book that explains the nature of the Orwellian world, she responds by falling asleep - but then since the treatise Winston reads is stupefyingly soporific, this may be an
indication of Julia's good sense rather than the reverse."
yea its not relevant to this discussion but i find his review of 1984 very amusing and don't get the chance to share it very often. wanted to link the review but thats not allowed i think
I don’t think 1984 is a masterpiece but that review seemed a bit cheap. Most of his criticisms are about it being “bad science fiction” and I don’t think that’s what Orwell was trying to do. People are constantly attacking 1984 because it “didn’t come true” which is a very superficial way to read a book. It’s true that the worldbuilding is dated but to me that’s part of the vibe. I think there’s some literary merit to the gross shitty hopeless version of England in the story. As for whether it totally pwns capitalism or communism or whatever I don’t really care.
Anonymous :
13 days ago :
No.11528
>>11536
>>11528
I'm not ESL. Obviously I know the idiom about mutual back scratching, but it's a clear double entendre.
The archbishop line is another instance of the adjective 'nancy' being deleted.
>>11535
There's other stuff too. This was just the instance where it had relevance to my argument about censorship / intolerance of the human failings of worthy people.
>>11489 (OP)
>Orwell writes, with sardonic euphemism, 'scratch one another's backs'
Are you sure this is meant as a sexual euphemism? It's a common phrase with a predominantly non-sexual connotation. I hear the same complaint in literary scenes now, except in the common sense of that phrase, about people who publish who publishes them and their friends, or things like that. Poets congratulating each other isn't real work, seems to be the more obvious thing to take from that line. And I don't understand at all your complaint about the Archbishop line.
Are you ESL? Are you gay and easily agitated?
See:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you_scratch_my_back_and_I'll_scratch_yours
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quid_pro_quo#English
Anonymous :
13 days ago :
No.11535
>>11536
>>11528
I'm not ESL. Obviously I know the idiom about mutual back scratching, but it's a clear double entendre.
The archbishop line is another instance of the adjective 'nancy' being deleted.
>>11535
There's other stuff too. This was just the instance where it had relevance to my argument about censorship / intolerance of the human failings of worthy people.
>>11489 (OP)
>nancy
Wait, that's it? If this is meant to establish that Orwell was unusually or deeply homophobic, then it's pretty thin. Apart from that, I think one can be reasonably homophobic in the sense that one can be reasonably islamophobic. I don't think there is anything wrong with phobias as long as they are empirically grounded.
Anonymous :
13 days ago :
No.11536
>>11537
>>11536
How much of a faggot must one be to see the words “back scratching” and immediately think of men having sex
>>11528
>>11489 (OP)
>Orwell writes, with sardonic euphemism, 'scratch one another's backs'
Are you sure this is meant as a sexual euphemism? It's a common phrase with a predominantly non-sexual connotation. I hear the same complaint in literary scenes now, except in the common sense of that phrase, about people who publish who publishes them and their friends, or things like that. Poets congratulating each other isn't real work, seems to be the more obvious thing to take from that line. And I don't understand at all your complaint about the Archbishop line.
Are you ESL? Are you gay and easily agitated?
See:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you_scratch_my_back_and_I'll_scratch_yours
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quid_pro_quo#English
I'm not ESL. Obviously I know the idiom about mutual back scratching, but it's a clear double entendre.
The archbishop line is another instance of the adjective 'nancy' being deleted.
>>11535>>11489 (OP)
>nancy
Wait, that's it? If this is meant to establish that Orwell was unusually or deeply homophobic, then it's pretty thin. Apart from that, I think one can be reasonably homophobic in the sense that one can be reasonably islamophobic. I don't think there is anything wrong with phobias as long as they are empirically grounded.
There's other stuff too. This was just the instance where it had relevance to my argument about censorship / intolerance of the human failings of worthy people.
>>11536
>>11528
I'm not ESL. Obviously I know the idiom about mutual back scratching, but it's a clear double entendre.
The archbishop line is another instance of the adjective 'nancy' being deleted.
>>11535
There's other stuff too. This was just the instance where it had relevance to my argument about censorship / intolerance of the human failings of worthy people.
How much of a faggot must one be to see the words “back scratching” and immediately think of men having sex
>I met the Bishop on the road
>And much said he and I.
>'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
>Those veins must soon be dry;
>Live in a heavenly mansion,
>Not in some foul sty.'
>'Fair and foul are near of kin,
>And fair needs foul,' I cried.
>'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
>Nor grave nor bed denied,
>Learned in bodily lowliness
>And in the heart's pride.
>'A woman can be proud and stiff
>When on love intent;
>But Love has pitched his mansion in
>The place of excrement;
>For nothing can be sole or whole
>That has not been rent.'
So, clearly, Yeats was a homophobe. It goes without saying that if standard coïtus stands for procreation, traditional bodily union (which the Church sanctifies), etc, and so on and so on, and so forth, etc, then non-procreative, "deviant" sexual acts—like anal sex—represent, in fact, a total subversion of religious purity. And "rent" doubtless, of course, means "torn".
>>11539
>I met the Bishop on the road
>And much said he and I.
>'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
>Those veins must soon be dry;
>Live in a heavenly mansion,
>Not in some foul sty.'
>'Fair and foul are near of kin,
>And fair needs foul,' I cried.
>'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
>Nor grave nor bed denied,
>Learned in bodily lowliness
>And in the heart's pride.
>'A woman can be proud and stiff
>When on love intent;
>But Love has pitched his mansion in
>The place of excrement;
>For nothing can be sole or whole
>That has not been rent.'
So, clearly, Yeats was a homophobe. It goes without saying that if standard coïtus stands for procreation, traditional bodily union (which the Church sanctifies), etc, and so on and so on, and so forth, etc, then non-procreative, "deviant" sexual acts—like anal sex—represent, in fact, a total subversion of religious purity. And "rent" doubtless, of course, means "torn".
based yeats
OP reactivated the dormant Kiwifarmers still left browsing this place from time to time to talk about how one of their favorite subjects: gays bad
Gays blew up every single populist, humanist, and labor movement on account of their collective narcissism.
Anonymous :
10 days ago :
No.11575
>>11600
>>11575
The individuals depicted in this photograph (I assume it's real and not AI) are transvestic fetishists/fetishistic AGPs with a rare infantilist subtype. Not gay.
About homosexuals, I feel split. Homos like Wittgenstein have done a lot, although one wonders if it's anachoristic to call him gay, because he seemed more asexual than anything else (he was in love with men, though it didn't seem very bodily--maybe the chief attraction of gayness for sensitive young men in early 20th C. Europe was the fact homosexual relationships can never really be fulfilled).
Gays kinda bad, they reproduce by grooming kids, they fetishize youth and are consummate consumers, and they deeply hate women.
>>11575
Gays kinda bad, they reproduce by grooming kids, they fetishize youth and are consummate consumers, and they deeply hate women.
The individuals depicted in this photograph (I assume it's real and not AI) are transvestic fetishists/fetishistic AGPs with a rare infantilist subtype. Not gay.
About homosexuals, I feel split. Homos like Wittgenstein have done a lot, although one wonders if it's anachoristic to call him gay, because he seemed more asexual than anything else (he was in love with men, though it didn't seem very bodily--maybe the chief attraction of gayness for sensitive young men in early 20th C. Europe was the fact homosexual relationships can never really be fulfilled).
Anonymous :
9 days ago :
No.11604
>>11633
>>11604
>You have no moral, religious, or scientific basis on which to oppose gay men besides "it grosses me out".
You have no moral, religious, or scientific basis on which to oppose, say, coprophagy, besides "it grosses you out"!
The alarm-ringing over male homosexuality by the usual folks strikes me as somewhat insincere, coming from secular Westerners. You have no moral, religious, or scientific basis on which to oppose gay men besides "it grosses me out". Everyone can see your externalized anxiety over sexual roles.
Anonymous :
8 days ago :
No.11633
>>11638
>>11633
>internet-style 'take the argument to its autistic logical conclusion' counter, irrespective of the context of the current subject at hand
Nice you totally defeated me. At least the poop-eaters would be getting their probiotics
>>11604
The alarm-ringing over male homosexuality by the usual folks strikes me as somewhat insincere, coming from secular Westerners. You have no moral, religious, or scientific basis on which to oppose gay men besides "it grosses me out". Everyone can see your externalized anxiety over sexual roles.
>You have no moral, religious, or scientific basis on which to oppose gay men besides "it grosses me out".
You have no moral, religious, or scientific basis on which to oppose, say, coprophagy, besides "it grosses you out"!
Anonymous :
8 days ago :
No.11638
>>11642
>>11638
You can't explain why coprophagy should be opposed except by appealing to an innate sense of disgust, and if you try to, it'd just mean that the motives for what you're saying aren't those being alleged.
>>11633
>>11604
>You have no moral, religious, or scientific basis on which to oppose gay men besides "it grosses me out".
You have no moral, religious, or scientific basis on which to oppose, say, coprophagy, besides "it grosses you out"!
>internet-style 'take the argument to its autistic logical conclusion' counter, irrespective of the context of the current subject at hand
Nice you totally defeated me. At least the poop-eaters would be getting their probiotics
Anonymous :
8 days ago :
No.11642
>>11645
>>11642
No, and I don't need to, because coprophagy is neither a widespread activity nor one that has ever been legislated against. You are correct that I have no "moral ground" to oppose it, and in fact, I don't, I don't wake up every day upset that someone out there is eating shit. I do not care, it does not affect my life, and I am sufficiently libertarian enough in my ideals to affirm this for any number of absurd activities you can come up with to foil arguments online. If mass coprophagy lead to widespread infectious diseases that spread outside of the coprophagy community, then that would obviously be grounds to oppose it. Sexual diseases, however, tend to be contained within the homosexual community, and cross over into non-homosexuals in the lumpenprole milieu (drug use, prostitution).
It's also a primarily solitary activity, so opposition to it should be likened to anti-masturbation. Bet you wouldn't like where that goes though.
>>11638
>>11633
>internet-style 'take the argument to its autistic logical conclusion' counter, irrespective of the context of the current subject at hand
Nice you totally defeated me. At least the poop-eaters would be getting their probiotics
You can't explain why coprophagy should be opposed except by appealing to an innate sense of disgust, and if you try to, it'd just mean that the motives for what you're saying aren't those being alleged.
Anonymous :
8 days ago :
No.11645
>>11646
>>11645
>Sexual diseases, however, tend to be contained within the homosexual community, and cross over into non-homosexuals in the lumpenprole milieu (drug use, prostitution).
...
>>11642
>>11638
You can't explain why coprophagy should be opposed except by appealing to an innate sense of disgust, and if you try to, it'd just mean that the motives for what you're saying aren't those being alleged.
No, and I don't need to, because coprophagy is neither a widespread activity nor one that has ever been legislated against. You are correct that I have no "moral ground" to oppose it, and in fact, I don't, I don't wake up every day upset that someone out there is eating shit. I do not care, it does not affect my life, and I am sufficiently libertarian enough in my ideals to affirm this for any number of absurd activities you can come up with to foil arguments online. If mass coprophagy lead to widespread infectious diseases that spread outside of the coprophagy community, then that would obviously be grounds to oppose it. Sexual diseases, however, tend to be contained within the homosexual community, and cross over into non-homosexuals in the lumpenprole milieu (drug use, prostitution).
It's also a primarily solitary activity, so opposition to it should be likened to anti-masturbation. Bet you wouldn't like where that goes though.
Anonymous :
8 days ago :
No.11646
>>11660
>>11646
In the developed world, obviously, where you and I and the rest of the site are located. Don't pull this bad faith "but what about the third worlders" bullshit trying to get the last word in.
>>11667>>11646
"ChatGPT, does the scientific literature indicate that men who have sex with men (MSM) have a higher prevalence of certain intestinal parasitic infections compared with heterosexual men?"
>Yes, this is a well-documented finding in the medical literature.
>>11645
>>11642
No, and I don't need to, because coprophagy is neither a widespread activity nor one that has ever been legislated against. You are correct that I have no "moral ground" to oppose it, and in fact, I don't, I don't wake up every day upset that someone out there is eating shit. I do not care, it does not affect my life, and I am sufficiently libertarian enough in my ideals to affirm this for any number of absurd activities you can come up with to foil arguments online. If mass coprophagy lead to widespread infectious diseases that spread outside of the coprophagy community, then that would obviously be grounds to oppose it. Sexual diseases, however, tend to be contained within the homosexual community, and cross over into non-homosexuals in the lumpenprole milieu (drug use, prostitution).
It's also a primarily solitary activity, so opposition to it should be likened to anti-masturbation. Bet you wouldn't like where that goes though.
>Sexual diseases, however, tend to be contained within the homosexual community, and cross over into non-homosexuals in the lumpenprole milieu (drug use, prostitution).
...
>>11646
>>11645
>Sexual diseases, however, tend to be contained within the homosexual community, and cross over into non-homosexuals in the lumpenprole milieu (drug use, prostitution).
...
In the developed world, obviously, where you and I and the rest of the site are located. Don't pull this bad faith "but what about the third worlders" bullshit trying to get the last word in.
Anonymous :
8 days ago :
No.11667
>>11668
>>11667
Intestinal parasitic infections?...how on Earth would the men contract those?...
>>11646
>>11645
>Sexual diseases, however, tend to be contained within the homosexual community, and cross over into non-homosexuals in the lumpenprole milieu (drug use, prostitution).
...
"ChatGPT, does the scientific literature indicate that men who have sex with men (MSM) have a higher prevalence of certain intestinal parasitic infections compared with heterosexual men?"
>Yes, this is a well-documented finding in the medical literature.
>>11667
>>11646
"ChatGPT, does the scientific literature indicate that men who have sex with men (MSM) have a higher prevalence of certain intestinal parasitic infections compared with heterosexual men?"
>Yes, this is a well-documented finding in the medical literature.
Intestinal parasitic infections?...how on Earth would the men contract those?...