There's a root of a well-meaning vegan argument in D*stiny's post, i.e. the removal of consent/autonomy in the case of killing which is oft overlooked when it comes to animals.
However, it's D*stiny, so he's being an edgelord contrarian with no stake in the game, as usual, and when this argument is made insincerely it becomes infinitely grosser, because you have to know he only posted it for the shock value of bestiality wrapped in the guise of debate aestheticism
edit: thanks for the cw
it's double the shock value when you realize he's proud of being a sociopath.
I'm not gonna dig to find the video but it's in there somewhere when he's talking about morality - he lets it drop that we think he's feeling emotions because he's emoting when the reality is that he doesn't really feel anything and never has that he can remember.
Yikes, that's concerning. Struggle session maybe inbound - It's good to have people like that identified so we can all be wary of them. People with antisocial personality disorder and to a lesser degree narcissistic personality disorder can be very dangerous to individuals and broader society. It's not their fault that they are that way, but I don't think we can afford to just write it off like it's a standard neurodivergence. Under a capitalist system, the worst of their instincts are activity encouraged.
Shoutout to the time
postulated that out of 4k people watching his stream there were likely a couple hundred who were into beastiality.I think a primary difference in the impulses that drive liberalism and leftism is that a leftist will realize they're taking part in something cruel and think "this is fucked up, I should stop" while a dedicated liberal will come to the same realization and think "welp, seal's broken, might as well go whole-hog evil."
How to spot a liberal: "No ethical consumption under capitalism."
The meaning has been perverted to mean "All consumption is equally unethical." And you can ignore the capitalism part entirely because of capitalist realism.
Beating up the various "influencer" people from time to time would do a lot to put some fear into them about the things they say and spread to huge audiences online.
Call me an adventurist or whatever but the quickest pathway to getting them to shut the fuck up is realising there could actually be personal consequences for the shit they do and say.
And then they will monetize the story of how they got beat up by the evil tankies and gain even more money and a larger audience. Vaush and Destiny have a lot of money. If someone beats them up they will just get a bodyguard or something. While you might get punished for your (admittedly extremely based) deed.
Just look at Richard Spencer. Did getting decked in the face on live television do anything to stop him being fascist scum?
With all of this being said: make sure you beat them to a pulp while they are on stream. Bonus points if it gets them banned from Twitch.
Just look at Richard Spencer. Did getting decked in the face on live television do anything to stop him being fascist scum?
idk i haven't heard from him in a couple years
I think he became the more socially acceptable neoliberal western chauvinist Democrat voting kind of fash.
Reminds me of a guy in one of my college classes who kept asking
cw: sv and general debatekid ickiness
"If the two parties consent, why should incest be illegal?" in an attempt to catch libs in some sort of ethical gotcha moment
He shut up real quick when I pointed out that because of the inherent power dynamics of a familial relationship, it's almost impossible to provide consent in cases of incest because that shit is coerced up the wazoo
Also that it was really fuckin weird that he kept bringing it up, because it was like the third time he did it in regards to three different discussions about consent
Straight white dudes are something else a lot of the time
It also seems to be like the most popular genre
What is the appeal of watching two people pretend to be related
Also I gotta wonder how the actors feel after spending an hour having sex with someone and calling them step-bro.
I guess the taboo nature of it
That or being so sexually repressed that your first sexual feelings are towards your own relatives
not into it myself but got a lot of respect for people who wanna fuck clowns. absolute freak shit but no trouble with morality and power dynamics
Algorithm and marketing dynamics aside, incest is a wildly common problem in the US at least. In the social services work I've done it comes up frequently.
spoiler
I thought about this a bit and, in addition to what you said:
Let's assume you have 2 siblings in their 30s who are romantically interested in one another, they're both independent financially and there's no power imbalance between them.
If you're in a position where both parties can consent, does the law even matter? Is the neighbor gonna call the police? Is the police gonna investigate and arrest them? I highly doubt it. I guess you can't get married.
I feel like there are certain subjects where it's just for the best not to overthink it
Using them as ideological gotchas says a lot more about them then it does about society
Something being pointless to think about has never stopped me from overthinking it
train of thought goes choo choo
Generally incest is a social construct, aside from power dynamics, even horizontal (e.g. siblings biological, step, whatever) incest suggests some dysfunction in the family dynamic when growing up, because we know things like the Westermarck effect make incest less likely.
But there's edge cases. Like people who were adopted and never met in childhood, like it's not really incest, though there's obviously genetic concerns which makes it advisable for them to not have kids (with each other).
Reminder that if you eat red meat/dairy, you are benefiting from bestiality. Cows are impregnated against their will by humans, who have collected semen against the bulls will.
the term "bestiality" implies it's done for the sexual gratification of the human, but go off your majesty
"Gratification" is your implication. The device used to restrain cows for insemination is colloquially referred to as a "rape rack". Can you confront that truth?
ask the people who call it that what they think about human women.
i think they call it that because they think it's an edgy joke, not because they think the term meaningfully applies to cattle.
they're misogynists, most people don't think food animals are also people.
So if I'm understanding right, forced pregnancy isn't rape if it's a... "food" animal? What can and cannot animals consent to?
we're not in c/vegan, our divergence occurs way before that question has coherent meaning.
all i can do is repeat myself that the chuds who call it that are doing so because they don't take sexual violence against human women seriously, not because they're using a vegan lense and uplifting the status of food.
Then I'm curious where that divergence occurs. Is it that there's a difference between pet animals and food animals? Is it that animals deserve no consideration? I'm not expecting to change your mind here but I am genuinely interested to know other discourses to contend with when people are open to it.
I feel it validates a certain truth that chuds would call it so while others refer to it in technical terms for sensitive optics and posturing.
sociologically speaking western culture in-groups pets as an exception to the usual status of non-humans, and even then cops will shoot your dog because they don't care and it's usually legal to euthanize a pet electively which would be a fucked up thing to do to grandma so it's not exactly consistent. Children do that kind of in-grouping/callous disregard duality on toys etc as well, it's not just an animals thing.
idk, the rpe rack* name came from chuds, the people who call it the official name i think aren't posturing, rather they don't think animal husbandry is r*pe, and there are probably quite a lot of people who would take great offense to the comparison. I understand the rhetorical purpose of hyperbolic language for agricultural practices (and maybe you do believe in your heart of hearts that it's exactly the same as someone assaulting another human person; i'm not accusing vegans of lying about their own morals) but I don't think cows or whatever are people so the framework doesn't apply.
If someone fucks animals to profit from distributing zoophilia material, is that not bestiality?
So only because the consumer gets off to or is intended to get off to it that is what makes it bestiality?
in the english i learned, as I said, the term implies sexual gratification of the person. perhaps because i don't talk about bestiality very often I have never encountered common usage that did not carry that implication.
funny clown hammer has been saying openly pedophilic things for at least 5 years, his bestiality notwithstanding. "Cancel culture" was never real.
always find it fucked when people will make the beastiality to animal agriculture comparison, then proceed to use it as a pro-beastiality argument rather than an anti-animal ag one. like how is that the conclusion you draw from this
I can't figure out what Destiny is trying to say in that post, knowing what actually happens in this scene is making this really hard to figure out what argument is being made.
As someone who doesn't know the scene, I think the general point is that if you're okay with animals being locked up, tortured, impregnated, killed, etc. without their consent, then you no longer can condemn bestiality on those terms.
Back when I was a major
I followed that line of reasoning for a hot second to the conclusion that it must not be that bad. Then I was like wait wtf this is messed up, went vegan, and now take a more consistent hardline stance on animal consent.
Fantastic, I was wondering when these scumbags would start tearing each other apart, of course after they got bored harassing black content creators on YouTube
Hopefully these "takes" on bestiality will also attract the attention of the chuds, those two camps of sexpests, racists, and debate lords deserve each other
I'm really curious if Warhol actually moved the needle on anything. Like, OK, so he took up space in some ritzy galleries that might have gone to some art with genuine intent behind it. But, did that actually sway outlooks? Kinda seems like they were just throwing money at anything and anyone with "anti-communist" in the description.
The point is more that by sponsoring all the Andy Warhols of the art world it ensured the entire high art scene would remain vapid and harmless while being a "cultural prestige" thing globally. A given artist being vapid and reactionary is meaningless, but ensuring that all or even most successful artists are has a much bigger effect, and that's what their funding contributed to.
Because reactionaries have hegemonic power, they don't need to do anything but poison the well with any potential threats: they don't need to build a movement when they have armies behind them, they don't need to find new avenues to spread their ideology when they have the media and schools behind them.
2 minute compilation of Vaush horny posting for horse cocks courtesy of Jinx
https://youtu.be/RuJquByLYgY?si=9si3rLm3_lu-FdRb
these people should live in fear. bullying works
free at last........
as well
![[CW: Bestiality, SV] Liberalism](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/376d8b8a-85c2-4447-8a2d-4b2223703259.jpeg){kind=link}