Panopticon posted:

i don't think unisex toilets are a radical restructuring of society

i mean, this would be nice, but i think i remember discipline or someone posting some article a good amount of time ago (i think during original lf) about how rape of women goes up with unisex bathrooms, even at gay clubs.

Squalid posted:

maybe I'm not understanding you iwc but it sounds like you're angrily agreeing w/ roseweird

Squalid posted:

maybe I'm not understanding you iwc but it sounds like you're angrily agreeing w/ roseweird

Well she seems to be proposing that gay marriage somehow forces hetero society to “restructure itself”, I disagree, hetero society doesn’t give a shit about marriage (individual couples might, but society doesn’t) and it’s going to be legalized and absorbed and nothing significant will change.

I dunno it all seems like sleight-of-hand trickery from cosmopolitan international bankers to me

Superabound posted:

dorkshame

NoFreeWill posted:

now that they can marry (in some states) gays are concerned with no longer being queer enough (gay assimilation). then why did you fight so hard for the right to kill and marry?? they were unified in support of something that most of them aren't actually interested in, and now that they have achieved it are recognizing internal contradictions.

Yeah, the internal contradictions of the drapes in the honeymoon suite clashing with the throw-rug…..hideous!

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Look at this Niall Ferguson hubbub from the past few days. He can preach all sorts of imperialist, apologist, European-supremacist garbage that he wants to and he’s lauded, but he makes one crack about a martyr of the gay elite and has to grovel and apologise.

this is the best hubbub from the past few days

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist

THE
TALENTED
MR.COLE

what ferguson said about keynes was ridic, tho. like i'm not surprised at it and i don't care if he apologizes because he's fucking niall ferguson after all but what he said was silly, gay people aren't less invested in the future than straight people in a way that makes them bad at economics (i am bad at economics for other reasons). but he gets shit for being imperialist scum all the time, who is giving him shit for this that didn't for the other stuff?

actually keynes was the model of a male homosexual fascist and the kind of bourgeois snob that doesn't exist to hate anymore, obviously liberal attacks on him will not pinpoint this. but they are still worth making.

roseweird posted:

I think your view is distorted by an overly Darwinistic conception of reality. I will never have children, but I am deeply invested in the future of humanity because I don't identify my psychic continuity with my genetic continuity. I hope to contribute to the shared knowledge and culture of everyone, and I am invested in the education and care of children, even though they are not my own. i think there are real differences in how people manage their personal finances depending on whether or not they have to provide for children from it, but it is frankly wrong and unfair to suggest that people without children actually perceive time in some deficient way and regard the future with apathy.

as for the differences in response to niall ferguson, i don't know, conservative politicians in this country have a bizarre relationship with gay men, in that an improbably large fraction of them appear to actually BE gay men, and there are plenty of rooms full of gay white men where it is totally acceptable to say this or that about arabs and mexicans.

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Ok sorry Rosie (can I call you Rosie) I did misinterpret your thing, carry on and keep posting.

Re: Niall though, when he says racist or imperialist shit the criticism is coming from people on the sidelines and it doesn’t matter, certainly enough to prompt an apology!

However he made the crack about Keynes at the ‘Altegris Strategic Investment conference in Carlsbad, Cali’’. Now I don’t know what that is but it seems safe to assume it’s something horrible, and even then one person said that ‘the room went quiet’. If he’d said something to that forum about how Arabs need a firm hand to make sure they stay in line or that Mexicans are ‘too fatalist for entrepreneurship” or something everyone would have been gently nodding their heads and offering faux-thoughtful ‘hmmm’s.

Also I’m sorry but people without children being less invested in the future of the planet is obvious, the whole reason why we exist is to reproduce and that’s not up for argument.

You know who else was childless and brought flames and death upon a whole continent? That’s right….

Fair points, I wouldn’t want to devalue the education of other peoples children. We have a childless atheist prime minister and she doesn’t give a shit about anything and perhaps that’s making me generalize. Also a declining birth rate seems to have gone hand in hand with spiritual and environmental degradation (and apathy) but correlation perhaps doesn’t equal causation

I don’t really want kids though, I can’t take Goatstein’s nihilism or cynicism as seriously anymore since he decided to bring a child into the world he hates.

Squalid posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Fair points, I wouldn’t want to devalue the education of other peoples children. We have a childless atheist prime minister and she doesn’t give a shit about anything and perhaps that’s making me generalize. Also a declining birth rate seems to have gone hand in hand with spiritual and environmental degradation (and apathy) but correlation perhaps doesn’t equal causation

I don’t really want kids though, I can’t take Goatstein’s nihilism or cynicism as seriously anymore since he decided to bring a child into the world he hates.


There is no way you could relate declining birthrates with environmental degradation. Well maybe if you concede that carbon emissions are pollution, but we all know how you feel about that

People have less children as they gain more wealth and education, more wealth and education leads to more consumerism in an ever-increasing quest to differentiate yourself from others in new and ecologically damaging ways, from buying enough quinoa to destabilize the andes to buying enough gadgets to prompt another world war in east central Africa.

When couples don’t have kids they go on more holidays which even apart from carbon emissions causes huge amounts of social and environmental displacement.

Look at Russia: drastically shrinking population and one of the worst ecological basketcases in the world.

If you don’t have kids you care about the future in an abstract way, if you DO then there is a biological motivation for actually wanting your children to be able to survive.

What are most affulent childless retirees going to spend their excess money on: worthy, long term constructive causes or holidays and consumer items?

roseweird posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
I just get annoyed by this talk of the “gay marriage debate”. There is no debate, the validity of homosexual relationships is broadly accepted in the West and even more so by the liberal professional class that generally dictates policy; even fucking mitt Romney said he loves Modern Family. It’s now simply a matter of electoral mechanisms playing out, the debate is over.


i meant to respond to this earlier, but mitt romney watching modern family doesn't mean shit, you can't learn critical gender consciousness from watching tv. also, the only time i saw modern family was when my mother tried to make me watch it, along with other assimilationist propaganda like The Kids Are Alright. the Mitt Romneys and My Moms of the world have an interest in presenting a very one-sided view of queer culture to you. i assume modern family has shiny white gay men in it or something, or lesbians of color with conspiculously upper middle class problems

Yeah it’s shiny white gay men (with an adopted Vietnamese daughter I believe), they’re completely non-threatening….but America still seems to accept their gayness…if they have issues with other types of queer personalities or agendas it would seem to me it isn’t because of their gayness but because of their radicalism, blackness, poorness, peurto-riconess, or whatever

gayness in and of itself is now part of liberal capitalist hegemony and it will find it a very snug fit