Groulxsmith posted:
someone critique my okc
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/stormcrow82/

lmao

AmericanNazbro posted:
I suffer from a condition called hyperhydrosis which basically means my sweat glands are like leaky faucets. I am 28 years old but I wear adult diapers (Depends?) so that the back of my pants doesn't have a streak of wetness down them. At first this was all I used them for -- to cover up the stain of my butt sweat -- but over time I learned to enjoy wearing diapers for the other benefits they confer. I can pee in public. I can be speaking to somebody and I can literally pee my pants, and nobody has to know but me. There are very few things quite as stimulating as unloading my bladder into soft cottony absorbent material and letting my penis swim around in urine for a while before everything is absorbed. Yesterday I was talking to a woman I have a crush on and I peed myself, and it was the most erotic thing that ever happened to me. I tried pooping in them once but it was a horrible mess to clean up and it smelled bad

Groulxsmith posted:
someone critique my okc
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/stormcrow82/

I am a corvidophile. I have an obsession with crows, ravens,magpies, jackdaws, and pretty much all other corvids.

tpaine posted:

Lessons posted:

AmericanNazbro posted:
I suffer from a condition called hyperhydrosis which basically means my sweat glands are like leaky faucets. I am 28 years old but I wear adult diapers (Depends?) so that the back of my pants doesn't have a streak of wetness down them. At first this was all I used them for -- to cover up the stain of my butt sweat -- but over time I learned to enjoy wearing diapers for the other benefits they confer. I can pee in public. I can be speaking to somebody and I can literally pee my pants, and nobody has to know but me. There are very few things quite as stimulating as unloading my bladder into soft cottony absorbent material and letting my penis swim around in urine for a while before everything is absorbed. Yesterday I was talking to a woman I have a crush on and I peed myself, and it was the most erotic thing that ever happened to me. I tried pooping in them once but it was a horrible mess to clean up and it smelled bad

owns

reminds you of posting, doesn't it?

i just wish i could feel as good about anything as that guy does about pissing his pants

blinkandwheeze posted:
leaving this as the designated chat thread, or having one at all, means the most active thread on the main forum is going to be full of disgusting internet gossip, that's a really good way to alienate outsiders (which imo is the opposite of what should be happening)

lmao what outsiders

futurewidow posted:
I stumbled across this : http://kasamaproject.org/2012/03/16/has-privilege-theory-failed/
most of it is solid and pretty spot on

hmm. i checked out the original blog post, and Noel Ignatiev, (or someone assuming his name, though that seems unlikely), gave a particularly trenchant response.

“Privilege theory” (a term, by the way, I never heard before this posting) maintains only (1) that divisions among the exploited class, in particular divisions between black (not “POC”) and white workers were not the result of ignorance or brainwashing but rested on a system of privileges enjoyed by white workers which led them at crucial moments to cut separate deals with the exploiters at the expense of the rest of the exploited and which were ruinous to the all those who were part a class seeking to create a new world, and (2) that working-class unity could not be built by relying on or appealing to whites to reject “racism” in a struggle for common demands but required directly addressing the race differential that underlay the divisions. It was never intended as “a theory of struggle and actual emancipation of oppressed people,” nor was it intended to solve the internal problems of revolutionary organizations. That some individuals have drawn upon some of its language to guilt-trip comrades, or that some people have built academic careers based on appropriating some of the insights developed by those who pioneered and popularized the notion of privilege should no more lead anyone to discard the notion than the rise of academic Marxism should lead people to reject Marx. Contrary to what Will says, the reformists are not “those who speak of privilege,” but those who do not, because they are avoiding one of the most important conditions that have led many militant and promising struggles to accommodate themselves to capitalist rule.

i couldn't have put it better myself, and all i'd have to add is repeat that the article rests on false premises about what privilege theory is, any and all of which could and would be rejected if you presented this article to someone committed to such ideas. i'd hope those of us who aren't can be honest enough to admit the same.

discipline posted:
No True Privilege Theorist

that's not the point.

the author of that piece gives four fairly complicated premises of privilege theory, not drawn from any referenced source but apparently of his own conception. but here's someone, a fairly sophisticated writer on the subject assuming he's who he says he is, offering an entirely different set of premises, both simpler and more in line with radical thinking, that clearly avoid the errors highlighted by the article, (though, tbh, i think 'Will' hadn't really closed the case there to begin with, if he intented to). this isn't an endorsement of tumblr politics or whatever, but it's a demonstration that the importance of privilege can't be theorized away as easily as the author intended.

Marxists, both orthodox and revisionist, and socialists—especially those who came of age during the rise of the New Left in western countries—have often interpreted the perceived ascendancy of identity politics as representing the end of radical materialist critique (see discussions in Farred 2000 and McNay 2008, 126–161). Identity politics, for these critics, is both factionalizing and depoliticizing, drawing attention away from the ravages of late capitalism toward superstructural cultural accommodations that leave economic structures unchanged. For example, while allowing that both recognition and redistribution have a place in contemporary politics, Nancy Fraser laments the supremacy of perspectives that take injustice to inhere in “cultural” constructions of identity that the people to whom they are attributed want to reject. Such recognition models, she argues, require remedies that “valorize the group's ‘groupness’ by recognizing its specificity,” thus reifying identities that themselves are products of oppressive structures. By contrast, injustices of distribution require redistributive remedies that aim “to put the group out of business as a group” (Fraser 1997, 19).