Me the ultimate leftist going down on my sister just as Marx intended
The "oral with your sister" / "anal with your father" schism is tearing leftism apart.
That's right, I'm a Marxist-Mullenist, being gay with your dad is a prelude to the revolution
There's definitely something "tearing" there but not sure if its just leftism
Cannibalism as a widespread cultural practice is actually super fucking rare outside of England.
One of the funniest bits of projection ever. Victorians were coming up with all kinds of crazy ways to eat mummies and shit, and all of western society memory-holed it.
powdered Irish skulls
literally just google this and you get:
https://www.historyireland.com/skulls-for-sale-english-conquest-and-cannibal-medicines/
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/drinking-skulls
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(18)30330-2/fulltext
Aren't all Christians cannibals? Don't they believe they're eating the body of Christ? Sorry I don't fully understand transubstantiation.
Only Catholic dogma still believe that it literally turns into the flesh and blood of Christ. Protestants generally acknowledge it as a symbol, not the real deal.
This also depends on the specific sect of Protestantism though, with some believing it is merely a symbol, while others believe it is the spiritual body and blood of Christ.
Why don't they just compromise and say the bread stays bread but the wine does turn into blood, should I start my own sect
TIL the international foursquare tournament is just another christian sect not actually a competition
insofar as jesus was crucified in order to deliver humanity from sin, god gave up his own son, which is reflected in the ritual of the eucharist: jesus' blood and flesh gives sustenance to his church. i think it's a cool ritual personally, i'm not sure if other religions have the sacrifice of its own prophet as a foundational belief.
Everything indigenous groups have ever done is good, actually. I am very smart.
Ritual human sacrifice to appease the gods? Not actually that bad! Kill the krakkka inside your head.
I mean, it wasn't that bad compared to the scale of human sacrifice in Europe at the time, yes I am including executions in this metric
Damn, looks like I need to brush up on my Yakubian lore. Thanks comrade.
Are these people feds?
Because they're overdoing it, the left cannot be character assassinated any further.
Regardless of whether or not these people are feds, I think this kind of shit is a reasonable argument for the need to have a centralized party or parties that have the power to censure or expell members.
As far as I can tell that’s just an increased risk of transmission, if the disease is already there in the eaten. It doesn’t create prion diseases out of nowhere. But it also seems pretty easy to avoid by just not eating the brain.
(Not that cannibalism is ok, ofc)
On top of everything else saying native Americans were cannibals is uniquely offensive.
The whole idea of wendigos is its what happens to you if you consume human flesh.
Entire villages committed mass suicide before winters if they didn't have enough food so no one would have to resort to cannibalism.
There have been some indigenous cultures that genuinely practiced cannibalism such as the Wari', but to imply it was commonplace is not only incorrect but also doing the work of (ironically cannibalistic) European colonizers.
thinking back to a shipwreck i read about where the survivors decided to take a longer route to safety bc they thought the closest inhabited island was filled with scary cannibals
you'll never guess what happened next~
Papists do weekly ritual cannibalism according to their own doctrine
The W* (which is how you should refer to it because invoking it's name is frowned upon) isn't just some monster horror story. In my tribe and others it is a cannibalistic spirit that may possess you if invoked. That being said there are several tribes where folks do eat their ancestors as a part of their funeral practices.
Really wishing it never got picked up by the internet spoopy creepypasta culture and turned into some zombie deer thing.
Yeah its origin is probably closer to an uncanny valley "thing looks human but doesn't act human and is dangerous."
There's usually a kernel of truth in a lot of the old indigenous legends and stories. These become traditions and rituals over time but likely started as practices to guard against actual dangers. Like funerary practices. If you go with exposure you don't leave the body near where you live. Or you bury the dead. You might do this to "respect the spirits" but it also prevents disease and/or attracting undesired animals to your location.
well possessed by a spirit of unquenchable murderous greed is not an unfair description of our society
I mean fair, but most of these internet depictions aren't that so much as "big spooky deer what lives in the woods and eats u because"
That's the idea behind the film Ravenous (1999), which I can only recommend
That's the fault of Stephen King, not creepypastas, but now creepypastas endlessly imitate it just like most other spoopy things King wrote.
Oh fr? I didn’t know he had a story with them, that makes a lot of sense.
That one is super frustrating too - they just don’t give a shit about the origins at all, just treat it as a indigenous peoples themed slenderman why not
it's almost like different cultural traditions are different. It's not a big ask that you when referencing a culture that has been the subject of sustained efforts to destroy it respect their terminology
imposing spiritual and supernatural beliefs on non-adherents isn't respect.
you don't have to believe it. It's not imposing a belief on you to ask you to take your shoes off when you enter a mosque or your hat off in church. This is equivalent
it's asking for a small courtesy out of respect for their beliefs
stop imposing your athiesm on them
never using a word because of a superstition* is not at all similar to a norm about not tracking dirt into a place, or a i don't even know what you're talking about hats, people wear hats in church all the fucking time.
stop imposing your athiesm on them
i don't think a "version of bloody mary" is a deity.
it's asking for a small courtesy out of respect for their beliefs
you'll note i have not used the specific word, despite my position, but she said she doesn't even believe in the thing. my understanding ore broadly of that sort of "spirits" superstition around the world is that the vast majority of people from cultures that have them don't actually believe in them, so it's incredibly weird to me that neurotypicals want this norm of treating with respect superstitions that aren't even believed in by their culture of origin.
no hats in church is a rule at least where I am from and is a very old tradition. No shoes in a mosque is not just about mud it's primarily about respect which is why churches ask you to take your hat off because you are supposed to treat the building with the respect you would someone's home.
It's just a courtesy signifying respect across cultures to not violate small traditions like this. The rule itself is not important it is the following that signifies that you care about their feelings and cultural values because you care about their culture. Not following the rule signifies deliberate disrespect.
Think it's stupid all you want but there are social conventions for good and important reasons and they ease tensions across cultures. The conventions are a form of communication and if you don't follow the convention people are going to assume you mean the same thing as the people who don't follow the convention as a mark of deliberate disrespect.
It doesn't matter whether or not you can understand why they value this rule they have told you it is important to them
It doesn't matter whether or not you can understand why they value this rule they have told you it is important to them
that's all fine and dandy but again, "never use that (non-slur) word for a thing none of us actually believe in" is way more of an imposition on the rest of us than participating in norms at a specific place and time.
Where did I say none of us actually believe in it? Plenty of people do, especially more traditional folks. When you say that word to someone you're putting SERIOUS bad medicine on them and they're entirely within their rights to be offended. If you go around with this attitude you'll find it hard to make friends with people from other cultures.
Catfish just explained that her tribe believes that the thing possesss you if you invoke it. She's just trying not to get possessed by a cannibal spirit.
So in these stories, a person doesn't "become" the creature but is instead possessed by it? Does doing cannibalism also in some manner attract or invoke it?
Also, you are referring to it in the singular. Is there just one or is it sort of an "uncountable" presence or emanation or something?
There are lots of ways to attract it like being greedy, performing or talking about cannibalism, or saying or thinking it's name, probably other stuff. Lot of Native kids grow up horrified of it because it's basically our version of Bloody Mary. Even if I don't believe in it, it still scares me.
I refer to it in the singular yeah, in most stories if it is a spirit there is only one of that kind. I can't speak on the monstrous version but I assume that there can be multiple of them. It's important to remember that there are a lot of different versions of these stories.
This makes sense, thanks. Yeah, I wasn't asking about the Stephen King version because that's basically a werewolf with extra steps.
In any case, I always assumed that this was still a species of spirit (such that there could be multiple at a time) rather than an individual spirit. I suppose it's sort of like what another religion might classify as a lesser deity or a specific, named demon like these.
cannibalism has factually been practiced by many groups, including some indigenous to the americas. limiting it to US-occupied peoples i can't think of any examples, but that isn't what the OP asserted.
they're the most prominent example i was thinking of, but generally not included in what angloamericans call 'native americans' so i was tryin to be diplomatic with the terms
Do angloamericans only include people that used to live within the borders of the US and Canada or something?
Generally yes? Most of the native/indigenous people I know only organize around/within the community theyre in, let alone another country(s). Most of the indigenous peoples i know though are from really small tribes though so
Most anglos also dont even know what native tribes were once local in their area too
Isn't cannibalism as a practice more a thing in Indonesia on the other side of the world? Like kuru is a thing and if you need a word for disease from eating people's brains, then there's probably a non-insignificant amount of eating people. Not like mayos don't ever eat people though. Europeans would grind up mummies and drink a tincture of the dust as a miracle medicine, which is pretty weird and gross.
On top of everything else saying native Americans were cannibals is uniquely offensive.
Because all Native Americans are Algonquian?
The whole idea of wendigos is its what happens to you if you consume human flesh.
I mostly thought they're just Indigenous people talking about white people:
hairy
pale
smells like shit
insatiable greed
seems like the thread is agreeing that eating people and fucking family members is indeed bad
Yeah I know, but that's like concrete and other shielding materials containing the radioactive waste part of this thread that is going "um actually..."
i think cannibalism is a fine barometer of cultural relativism and lingering western chauvinism. to take the most charitable approach to op1, 'ritual cannibalism to honor the dead' is quite different from the consumption of enemies or strangers--for which our objection would be the violation of those non-consensual victims' consent or rights. but the Fore community in which Kuru famously spread did not practice that, theirs was the consumption of family/community members after natural death. i can't format an objection to that, besides the associated healthrisk---which modern medicine could probably prevent if applied to the problem. the Kuru outbreak actually killed that tradition so it's kind of academic to debate, but i think it's important examine knee-jerk demonization of foreign ritual on honest terms, and to apply a consistent standard to all sorts.
for a more practical question: should a religious practitioner be permitted to fast to death? a voluntary religiously-motivated suicide gets very different billing based on the context, and whether that's justified should be examined. maybe one is permissive of a fasting death or a self-immolation, but not an allegedly voluntary sacrifice, or a jonestown? what are the limits to religious freedom and bodily autonomy, and are those informed by a christian socialization or a materialist basis?
endnote: no, lol to the incest. my actual stance on religion is full abolition before someone twists this into support for mostly dead religions, this is about racist and chauvinistic attitudes that socialists are not automatically immune from
the Kuru outbreak actually killed that tradition so it's kind of academic to debate
Seems to me that this is the answer to the question in most cases. Historically, some cultures practiced cannibalism but most have stopped and I don't know of any active movements to bring back that practice. There's an ethnocentric tendency to think of mainstream culture as one which evolves over time but minority cultures are static traditionalist museum pieces. That couldn't be further from the truth - minority cultures change in response to new conditions and information too.
I would go even so far as to argue that using indigenous cultures to try to justify cannibalism is engaging in the "noble savage" trope.
the Kuru affair happened in the 1950s-60s, not exactly the remote past. the problem is that "new conditions and information" in most cases consisted of christianizing, colonial influences. i don't think we can chalk up the fact people getting colonized and missionary'd tend to abandon cannibalism as a natural development of culture
I would go even so far as to argue that using indigenous cultures to try to justify cannibalism is engaging in the "noble savage" trope.
just the opposite of anything i've asserted but ok
But like you said, the indigenous people who were afflicted by Kuru stopped because they got sick and medical evidence showed them cannibalism was why. Afaik there's nothing christianizing or colonial about that info.
just the opposite of anything i've asserted but ok
Sorry I wasn't accusing you of doing it, I was agreeing with you. My bad that it was unclear.
unfortunately Kuru being documented and researched is a result of the establishment of australian colonial authority over those people, and the subsequent promulgation of missions to them. so it's hard to know to what extent which influence affected it most, or how the epidemic might have amplified the efforts of missionaries. surely there's a lot at play and it could indicate a way a cannibalistic social structure could have selective pressures against it, but it's not nearly as neat as i'd like to make firm judgements.
also to consider is the mutation in some of the people of the region to resist prion disease, which offers an alternate path out of a prion-disease problem, without behavioral-cultural modification. and identifying the cannibalism as the source of the problem is probably unintuitive enough that i'd consider it pretty unlikely for even an urban, literate, recordkeeping society to figure out. because most people that participated in the cannibalism didn't get sick, and those who did would at different timescales. without our detailed knowledge of the biological processes, it'd be kind of insane to assert that two people that munched on a brain and died 20 years apart both died from the same cause.
Sorry I wasn't accusing you of doing it, I was agreeing with you
oops my bad
Yeah, I don't know enough about the historical or medical aspects of Kuru so I'm hesitant to speak like I know anything about it.
I suppose my main point is that there's sometimes this unspoken assumption that the forces of "civilization" (i.e. colonialism) are the only factors keeping indigenous people from backsliding into "barbarism" (i.e. their traditions at the time of colonization, and as documented by the incredibly racist race science of that era). I detected an undercurrent of that in the original post that we're all dunking on, and I thought that what you said about the tradition ending because of Kuru to be a really good example of how the unspoken colonial assumption is bullshit.
To me, the foremost struggles for indigenous peoples are sovereignty and development. I think that reviving medically sketchy traditions would be pretty low on the list of priorities of most indigenous peoples and 99% of the time when it's brought up in an internet argument it's in bad faith.
Kuru to be a really good example of how the unspoken colonial assumption is bullshit
i mean it absolutely is bullshit, specific circumstances are always just annoyingly complicated. developments under a colonial system are real, and though inseparable from those pressures, it doesn't make the result ungenuine or something. i'll decry the missionaries up and down all day, but they create earnest believers, a people won't just jump back to the old ways after being coerced to abandon them.
the foremost struggles for indigenous peoples are sovereignty and development
100%, cannibalism discussion is just about overturning the excuses the europeans made for colonizing
people be eating their own amputated limbs every now an then. if mr beast starts paying people to do it and buying them prosthetics etc so he can sate his lust for human flesh we can revisit the issue. in a more equal society where such coercion wouldn't be possible there's only the food safety concerns.
no, lol to the incest
the problems with it are coercion/grooming and reproductive genetic risk. if you remove those somehow it's still bad to normalize the practice because "we didn't know we were related" almost never happens and actual violence happens consistently.
"we didn't know we were related" almost never happens and actual violence happens consistently
exactly, there's firm irreligious objections to incest with the thought-experiment defenses being so peculiar and rare they're not worth treating with. if there ever were someone arrested for 'we didn't know!' like sure, free them but the diagnostic there is a less awful justice system, not philosophical musing on a fetishized sex crime
to incest with the thought-experiment defenses being so peculiar and rare they're not worth treating with.
"Accidental incest" happens more often than people think, particularly in smaller isolated counties. It's something of a problem in Iceland for example.
yeah it's not something people would advertise about themselves. in that rare exception sure i'm not gonna go on the twitter dot com and cancel some random married couple that did not break up a long term relationship over it, but that's usually not what the weirdos who argue for it are talking about.
i can't format an objection to that, besides the associated healthrisk---which modern medicine could probably prevent if applied to the problem
I think you would come up against real problems there. bottom line eating someone just carries the risk of catching any infectious diseases they have
you could test for them i imagine? but like compare Mad Cow & other meat-eating risks 1st world resources are applied to that make consumption of animal products relatively safe
diseases often don't cross species very well. Consumption of animals that aren't genetically close to you is inherently safer than eating human
especially if they died by natural means as that normally means they were sick. A healthy killed animal is far safer to eat than a human that died of illness in many ways
diseases often don't cross species very well
that's a good observation, but this discussion is still kind of besides the point. yes, eating human meat is dangerous, but is it dangerous enough to forbid or merely to educate/mitigate risks?
I don't live in a country where it is a traditional funeral rite so my opinion there doesn't really matter
I definitely don't want commodity production of human meat
testing for prions, especially for ones that you don't know of yet (which can develop at any time in any person due to the nature of prions, but that's very very rare) is extremely difficult, when mad cow disease is detected in a cattle herd you cull the herd, it isn't worth it, the risk is far too high, and prions cannot be removed through anti-biotics or any kind of treatment, the only way to destroy them is denaturation through burning
prions are misshapen proteins that 'spread' in that when they touch the normally shaped proteins of the same kind they can cause them to become misshapen in the same way too, and being misshapen means this protein can't do its job, and when it's job is keeping your brain working or doing other important biological functions, you can see where issues arise
someone who was healthy at the end of their life may have prions in their body that were dormant and did not show symptoms, the longer you live the more likely you are to have proteins become misshapen, most are harmless and wouldn't spread anyway, and most people die without developing anything to do with prions because of just how unlikely it is to happen
but in the rare chance someone's body produces a misfolded protein that is both infectious and affects an important biological function then that extremely small chance would be buried in the ground or incinerated the majority of the time, but if more people practiced cannibalism then that protein would have a field day as it spread to the first person and then through blood contact spread to others, because a lot of prion disease is slow acting and/or has a very long incubation period (multiple years)
so not practicing cannibalism makes it a lot less likely for an untreatable deadly prion disease to materialize
so what i don't understand is how prions can be resisted, and whether the epidemiology of a prion disease is about who ingests/receives an incorrectly folded protein, or about individuals with particularly... foldable? proteins getting a prion and developing an illness that others wouldn't. i'm particularly confused because the immune system isn't involved, is it?
so what i don't understand is how prions can be resisted
basically all prion diseases that we know of are not curable and have a 100% fatality rate
and whether the epidemiology of a prion disease is about who ingests/receives an incorrectly folded protein
well, it can depend on some things, like for example if there was a difference in how well your body worked without that certain protein being functional compared to another person who is less resilient when this particular protein doesn't work well, it's kind of the reason why the incubation period varies so widely, the build up and conversion from good proteins to misfolded ones isn't instant and takes time, so until that build up gets to a level where it causes symptoms we just don't know that the person has anything wrong with them
or about individuals with particularly... foldable? proteins getting a prion and developing an illness that others wouldn't.
there's variation between people of course, but no if a prion is a certain protein and you expose it to proteins of the same kind it makes them misfold, maybe certain people have a different variation of that protein that does the same job but is structured a little differently so it's not as susceptible or at all even, but that's speculation on my part, I haven't read deeply into this particular topic, generally speaking research into prion disease is still very inadequate, it's very rare, and is always fatal, so it's kind of hard to do research on
i'm particularly confused because the immune system isn't involved, is it?
yeah the immune system can't really fight it typically, because the protein matches the ones that the body uses, there isn't much to tip it off since the immune system doesn't look at protein folding, it looks at what proteins, sugars, and other molecules something has, in fact, the immune system can actually help the prion disease move into the body and reduce the incubation period as was seen in this study on rats, https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1006/clim.2000.4875
oh also, not every exposure would mean 100% getting infected, especially since the propagation of the misfolding isn't instant and takes time, so if those proteins get disposed of and replaced before they can spread (as the body naturally does dismantle and rebuild lots of proteins) then you wouldn't get infected
though keep in mind that these are rare diseases, that affect like 1-2 people per million worldwide every year, some of those cases are due to infection (acquired), some are due to genetic issues that are inherited, meaning the body itself makes misfolded proteins sometimes due to genes being coded with a bad mutation in the area that codes for that protein, and some are just sporadic, meaning one protein just decides to misfold because it got built slightly wrong cause that person is extremely unlucky and then it spreads
more reading here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890484/
generally speaking, not something you wanna ever risk the chance of making more common
hell yeah i really appreciate you taking the time :mashallah:, thank you
i'm fascinated to know how that chance of being infected stacks up against life expectancy, but that's gotta be an insane thing to study---probably a majority of possible prion-disease uhhh 'infected' might expire from other things before a decade or two of incubation actually completes. its not like we're doing detailed studies of every dead person to check.
extremely interesting, the only subject that's prompted me to consider going into biology
Some things should simply not be permitted in society regardless of what oppressed group practices it.
i didn't assert Fore funerary cannibalism was okay because they are oppressed.
very little you can do about fasting to death as well. You would basically have to imprison and forcefeed them
just have to rely on the fact no major religion calls for it and people natively don't want to starve to death
You aren't a true leftist unless you're part of an elaborate Aristocrats joke
OP is a lib https://nitter.net/Pluto_Effigy/status/1727716807409094709
Terminal stage "DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" no-veggies-at-dinner-no-bedtimes ideology.
Hilariously, /r/tankiejerk also complained about this post.
It's probably one of their lot larping "as a leftist". Same shit the fascists have done with "as a black man" forever. They used to do it with feminist stuff too, make completely psychotic accounts that they larped as and then used that as a content mine for the misogyny subreddits like trp pussypass etc etc.
Idk ive seen plenty if anarchist accounts argue that consensual cannibalism and incest shouldnt be illegal. The other day i saw a "thats gross, but not necissarily against my ideology' post go around and people pretty much all said those two things or kink stuff.
This is a pretty extreme example of that i guess but not out of charachter.
. Not us this time!
