LOL WUTTikTok bans the Derek Jensen Queer Theory Paedo Jeopardy video for hate speech

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from x.com

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It’s worth a watch if you haven’t seen it before, I’ve posted a couple of times here as have others.

Basically a lefty professor goes through all the leading lights of Queer Theory and tells you how they all promote or support paedophilia and how the paedo shit is the goal for Queer Theory.

TikTok banning it is interesting as it clearly allows the full gamut of QT fetish shit aimed at young people but not something educational.

[–]JulienMayfair 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Queer Theory has always been fundamentally oppositional, opposing all taboos and boundaries. As such, there's nothing built into it as a way to signal going too far. It's no surprise that age of consent laws became a target for them. They don't care about what it means to live a good, rewarding life; they simply want to smash anything that gets in the way of their appetites. And I say that as a gay man.

[–]AriShekelsteinDDS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well said. They’ve made it pretty fucking clear that they’d rather burn it all down than consider backing off.

When you’ve made a point of going out of your way to be as unreasonable as possible, you don’t leave people much of a choice. Otherwise reasonable people might decide at some point that it’s time to do some pretty unreasonable things in response.

[–]JulienMayfair 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

consider backing off.

When your whole project is to be "transgressive," where do you stop? You can't admit to having gone too far because that would mean that there is such a thing as going too far.

I read Queer Theory in the 1990s. I attended two Judith Butler lectures. I had a flirtation with it in my own scholarship, but then I began to see that there was something wrong with it.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think there are times where being transgressive is desirable, but it has to be actually based in something other than simple transgression in and of itself.

Let's just go full internet and use the Nazis as an example. People going around rounding up people and sending them to camps, being transgressive against the norm of obeying authority and attacking the Gestapo at every opportunity is probably to long term net social benefit. But only if your transgressive behavior is based on some sort of belief in fundamental human rights.

If it's just immature rebellion against authority just cuz, well it's a lose lose prospect. Either you lose your revolution and you get destroyed, or you win your revolution, are the new authority, and get destroyed by the neo-revolution.

Perhaps comedy is an exception to this as making fun of people in authority and flouting social rules in the context of a jest will always be funny I think. But again it takes someone who actually understands the social norms well to effectively make fun of them. Otherwise you just get dumb kids doing shit like orange man bad jokes.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can’t base your moral principles on “transgression of norms” for all the reasons u/julienmayfair says, but as you say transgression can be a valuable way in which the cause of humanity is progressed. I think the answer is that “Transgression” is merely the tool, but the principle around which you build your moral framework should be human dignity, which is what we had done in the west until the rise of PoMo and critical theory. If we establish, as we had, that there are hard lines you don’t cross because they are counter to treating all humans with dignity (don’t rape children, don’t murder, don’t compel thought or speech etc) then you are still free to transgress social norms and boundaries, which is what great thinkers and artists have always done, but there’s a hard limit and importantly that hard limit isn’t derived from a religious tradition or arbitrary decision, so if you transgress that then either you’re going to face consequences or you’re going to have to try really, really hard to develop a sane and cogent argument to rationalise your transgression.

[–]Erasmus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Unreal. Just when I think they can't surprise me any more, they do.

[–]Vaporade 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Tiktok is a Chinese weapon designed to destroy the west, this shouldn't be surprising at all

[–]Erasmus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I guess what surprises me is that they banned it even though video isn't an attack on queer theory from the right. It's literally an exploration of the foundation of queer theory from its founders. So at some level, they feel their own theories are so repellent that ordinary people must be protected from knowing too much about them.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's pretty normal. The pedophiles have been operating under a strategy of trying to demonize anyone who calls them out on it for years. Ever encounter someone like that IRL and they'll find all sorts of ways to find you morally questionable and find all sorts of false equivalencies if you even suggest their behavior might be inappropriate.

Stuff like "you've dated people much younger than you". And like well sure, but there's a very big difference between say, a 50 year old dating a 20 year old. And a 30 year old dating a 15 year old.

"There's nothing illegal about going to a restaurant with a 15 year old."

Probably true if indeed that's all that happens. But again misses the point, and frankly the lack of realization about how bad that might look and how it might negatively effect then leads me to wonder if they aren't just totally socially retarded.

In this video you can see as the guy is pointing out direct quotes by these people in defense of pedophilia the heckler is employing similar strategy. Show a quote from someone defending pedophilia, then you must be a homophobe, but this guy's response is the correct one, who is the person associating homosexuality with pedophilia? Who is actually the homophobe?

We need to get over this nonsense that pointing out there's a pedophilia problem in the larger homosexual movement is somehow homophobic or is somehow a claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I don't really care because I don't have skin in this game but it always is bizarre to me when homosexuals want to pretend the issue doesn't exist, don't you realize that the entire reason why that stereotype exists in the first place is because of these people? And don't you realize if they are let alone they will reverse all the social gains you've achieved for homosexuals in general?

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a lefty professor

That right there is a bit of a shocker, that side of the divide doesn't normally pull back the curtain and show the ugly workings behind the scenes like that.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

China knows exactly what the fuck it's doing.

[–]NastyWetSmear 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"We see you! All of you here today who support this!..."

When nothing else worked to make everyone in the room stop listening to another opinion, the next step was to threaten them. We see you. We'll remember you. You support this... Implying what? That you'll remember them. Why does it matter? Because you'll tell someone and there'll be consequences.

Unable to refute the point, their first instinct is to lash out and see if they can silence them with fear. That isn't the mark of someone who is confident with their argument, that's the mark of someone who is confident in their ability to hurt someone else. When fighting you reach for the weapon you are most certain will defeat your opponent. If you reach for a gun, you're a shooter. If you reach for a sword, you're a fencer. If you reach for words, you're a debater. If you reach for fear and public shame, you're a tyrant.

[–]AriShekelsteinDDS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great comment.

[–]LtGreenCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I keep seeing that phrase "queer theory" and I usually just skim by without caring what it is, but this spurred me to finally look it up.

Apparently queer theory is an analytical framework created in the 90s for challenging the normalcy of heterosexuality. In other words, trying to convince us that heterosexuality isn't normal and that their sexual identities are. Which is mindboggling to me that anybody would even consider it for a second, because not only is it normal by statistical definition, but it's normal by biological necessity. It's critical to the survival of humanity, let alone almost every species on Earth larger than an amoeba. Like... just how fucking retarded do you have to be to seriously challenge this?

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It’s not just heterosexuality, it’s the concept of normalcy itself.

Queer Theory exists, in a nutshell, to antagonize norms, normativity, and the normal—that is, anything that can be considered normal by society (even in accurate, neutral description) and thus that carries or can be construed to imply a morally normative expectation about it, which it deems intrinsically oppressive.

Read the full definition here. It really is insidious in the way it intends to destroy everything.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I remember decades ago getting a couple of fun forum bans for having a debate with someone on this.

My argument was basically, removing any moral judgement from the term normal, it refers to what is essentially the default/statistically average condition, and by that logic, homosexuality cannot be normal in the human species as it's an evolutionary dead end.

If we define normal as "some pattern of behavior that commonly occurs in humans" than sure homosexuality is "normal".

Course if you take the whole "let's antagonize norms" then all holds are off, if it's normal not to murder homosexuals as I should hope is a societal norm, then by queer theory wouldn't you want to antagonize that norm by murdering gay people? It's clearly a nonsense theory.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It’s a nonsense theory that allows them to justify their predilection for raping children and to call you a bigot when you say “Hey, maybe you shouldn’t be raping children!” or “Yeah, I don’t think strippers and drag queens are entertainment for kids.”

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to understand how the entire academic world and subsequently the world at large was taken in by the grifters of Critical Social Justice fields like QT, CRT etc, because scratching even the thinnest part of the surface reveals the most vile shit (paedophilia, racism, etc).

I know the tide is slowly turning, the troons and Hoteps really seem to have opened a lot of people’s eyes. But still, they ran the western world for almost a decade.

[–]LtGreenCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to understand how the entire academic world and subsequently the world at large was taken in by the grifters

There definitely seemed to be a period of very quick infiltration by these ideologues into, not only Academia, but corporate culture, journalism, all media, all facets of pop-culture, and now just about everywhere. And it seemed to occur not long after we had that post-OWS epidemic of college students suddenly getting all uppity, demanding safe spaces, accusing staff of 'microaggressions', wanting to ban speech they disagree with, and all of that rhetoric that had the rest of us scratching our heads as to WTF happened to the universities. Apparently those same students, once graduated, were released unto the world with an agenda to push, and strangely, the knowhow of how to successfully infiltrate and subvert their employers. Without jumping to conspiracy theories I will say that it seemed to be all very coordinated, especially looking back at just how abrupt the cultural shift was.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think it's anything new really. We had groups like Nambla in the 90's after all.

Way I see it is they use the generally tolerant attitudes and necessity of free conversation in academic circles as a "safe space" environment to assemble as larger society won't tolerate their shit for a second. That's a double edged sword though really. The academic tolerance towards free speech is what allows us to have discussions like this and learn about such motives in the first place, if you try to mention this in a more mixed environment of "normies" they'll just think it very odd that you are discussing pedophilia at all and will assume you are the pedophile, likely at the insinuations of the actual pedophile in the group attempting to deflect.

I think these deflection tactics work in academia for a time as people make attacks of people being phobic or whatever, they've got their useful idiots to go on the attack for them, but I think it's cyclical. They go on unopposed for a time until they achieve some kind of mainstream awareness which they are aiming for, once that happens larger society comes around to realizing it and the tactics of attacking those who are suspicious and making wild claims of homophobia or whatever doesn't work anymore because the larger population won't respond well to those, which results in a large backlash and correction which forces them to throw their stupider and less discreet pedophiles under the bus and go back into the shadows and regroup. Larger society as a whole goes on a pedophilia crusade for awhile but like most moral panics it begins to turn into a witch hunt and you get shit like the satanic panic finding child molesters where there are none and stuff like parents getting caught up by overzealous agents for doing things like taking pictures of their baby taking a bath. Society realizes there's a witch hunt and rolls it back and remains pretty anathemic of the accusations again and the cycle repeats.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, there's your problem- their answer is "the societal norm is murder", so to the queer theorist, they would antagonize the norm by murdering the people THEY don't like first.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't expect them to have any logical premise they will hold themselves too other than trying to get away with whatever they want. It's a very selfish childish attitude that you'd hope most children grow out of in kindergarten.

I just like to point out how utterly worthless any theory that expresses an uncritical transgressions of social norms for no clear purpose other than transgression, personally I think it mostly exists as an easy paper topic for undergrads with useless humanities focuses to churn out without actually having to go out and "do the work" so to speak. How is refusing to share your toys an expression of queer liberation? Undergrad capstone project.

[–]alladd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They're all playing fucking stupid. "Look everyone in this room disapproves of what he's saying!"

Of course they do. They're in public. I know at least three HSTS in real life who have opined at length about the sexuality of children, the "erotic beauty" of Cuties, the superiority of European attitudes towards kid-fucking, etc. They each did it in private, on a Discord forum, and deleted it moments later.

It's all there, they just hide it. You get them in the right space, make them feel comfortable, though? They think it's a fucking revelation and they would love to share it with you.

[–]cephyrious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All the rude people trying to talk over with trans this and trans that. How predictable.