Nah, he’s just a tribalist spouting whatever brand new ideology is in fashion. There are no values, the transaction never amounts to anything more than ‘me good, you evil’.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Thu 18 Jul 2024, 21:24,
Share,
Reply)
whatever
perhaps there'll be a moment of self reflection when you're reading your next article about mad woke uni students cancelling someone or similar
"What about someone who goes onto a british humour site and takes offence on behalf of closeted anti-gay republicans about someone posting a link to a satirical news clip about them going to gay prostitutes?"
I mean, maybe I've got you pegged wrong, no pun intended, and you care deeply about closeted republicans trying to wind back gay rights, and want to protect them from the shame of their hypocrisy being satirised should they be reading links. Bravo for standing up against jokes on B3ta.
But it kinda seems pretty PC and woke to me
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Jul 2024, 23:35,
Share,
Reply)
I didn’t take any offence, I was just analysing a joke. I’m sorry that got your knickers in a twist, clutching your pearls because of fantasy that gay rights are in peril.
Next you’ll be bleating that democracy is in danger of extinction.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 0:02,
Share,
Reply)
haha
so the PC pretending to care about homophobia didn't work, so now it's "pearl clutching for gay rights" in the space of one thread
like I said, transactional values.
someone who was genuinely concerned about how some onion satire might be homophobic would be much more concerned about a christain-right dominated movement with an anti-gay agenda. We could argue about how much they're likely to do if they come to power, but given how they've already overturned abortion rights I'd hardly dismiss it as fantasy
Is it wokeness over petty bullshit that really bothers the right, because they certainly like having their turn at it? I don't mean to single you out, you're probably thinking no more deeply than, "they're attacking republicans, I've got to respond" a bit like how you felt the need to set the record straight when someone made a joke about trump not caring about the people who were shot. I'm just using it to illustrate a broader hypocrisy I find amusing
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 3:43,
Share,
Reply)
*cough* whataboutism *cough*
I don't give a fuck about Republicans. I do give a fuck about people's sexual orientation being used against them.
(, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 5:29, Share, Reply)
are you two interchangable? do you finish each other's sentences at dinner parties?
What's the difference between a priest and acne? Acne doesn't come onto to you face until you're 13
While you could interpret this joke as using someone sexual orientation against them, the essence is the shared knowledge that priests sexually abuse young boys.
Likewise the onion satire could be interpreted as an attack on sexual orientation, but it really only works if the target is both closeted, and closeted because they have a party that is increasingly anti gay fundamentalist. It's the hypocrisy that's funny. It relies on its audience being sophisticated enough to understand that.
The rest wasn't aimed at you, I've little idea if you care so much about homophobia that you can't stand humour that even references gay sex , but I'm certain prufrock doesn't.
My reply to you where I reference "people who spend half their time whining about wokeness" was just bait to flush that hypocrisy out of him. It's not much sport, but the board's a little slow.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 9:51,
Share,
Reply)
'While you could interpret this joke as using someone sexual orientation against them, the essence is the shared knowledge that priests sexually abuse young boys.'
You would only interpret it that way if you believed there was some correlation between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.
Most normal people would realise that these priests are paedophiles and that their sexual orientation has fuck all to do with their choice of victim.
(, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 10:32, Share, Reply)
"Most normal people would realise that these priests are paedophiles and that their sexual orientation has fuck all to do with their choice of victim"
I'd say about 99% of priest reported paedophilia is a male abusing a boy, so there is clearly very strong correlation in that pesky thing called reality, and to say the priests have no sexual orientation in their choice of victim is kind of idiotic, rather than what "normal people would realise".
I think what you meant to say, if you were a bit less confused, is that being gay doesn't make you any more likely to be paedophile, which I'd agree with. It's got fuck all to do with with the joke, mind, which doesnt mention gender.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 13:27,
Share,
Reply)
'I'd say about 99% of priest reported paedophilia is a male abusing a boy, so there is clearly very strong correlation in that pesky thing called reality'
You're really digging yourself into a corner here. I suggest you go and re-educate yourself.
zeroabuseproject.org/victim-assistance/jwrc/keep-kids-safe/sexuality-of-offenders/
I'm not sure the re-education will do anything to cure your internalised homophobia, though...
(, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 14:14, Share, Reply)
yeah that pretty old and now discredited, as is a lot of 20th century psychiatry,
but respect for referring to research, so I'll do you the respect of a decent answer
Here's a more modern meta-analysis of the research jaapl.org/content/48/2/146
"Perhaps the most comprehensive review of the evidence potentially in favor of the idea that pedophilia is an orientation is embedded in a fifty-page treatise on the subject of “sexual orientation.” These authors define sexual orientation as “attraction to members of the same sex, both sexes, or the other sex”
I think the issue in the past was that many forensic psychiatrists defined homosexuality as a pathology in itself, with the obvious difference to the pathology of paedophiles in age preference. Therefore a gay is not a paedo, as paedo is its own sexual orientation. (It was a bit like saying wayne rooney fucking grannies isn't heterosexual because he has a preference for old people). We now no longer consider homosexuality a pathology, nor do modern psychiatrists and the DSM5 consider paedophilia a sexual orientation of its own (though a few still do). Sexual orientation and gender preference in the normal sense is now considered a relevant clinical feature of paedophilia in modern psychiatry.
You can argue about precise definitions, but personally I think if you get aroused getting naked with boys and touching boys cocks and sticking you dick in bums, but don't get aroused by girls, it's probably a sign that homosexuality is part of it. Not all of it, but part of it.
And I'd speculate that those who are aroused by young boys are attracted to the priesthood where they get opportunity. Unless they teach it in the seminary. And I reckon it's a public service to keep it in the public consciousness that these these sanctimonious hypocrite cunts fuck vulnerable kids by telling jokes about them
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 15:21,
Share,
Reply)
isn't sexual abuse about power and opportunity rather than sexuality?
Priests historically had and still have better access to vulnerable boys. That;s why 80% of children sexually abused by priests were/are boys but that isn't the same in the non-priest sexual abuser population.
(
tickle I was away, Sat 20 Jul 2024, 11:29,
Share,
Reply)
I think even non abusive sex can be about other things, but sexual orientation and preference is part of it
kevin spacey might be into abusing young male actors, and cosby into drugging chicks and raping them, but their sexual preference informs who they choose. cosby isnt drugging men, and spacey women. Paedo's are particularly fucked in the head if that doco by Louis theroux was any guide, but like us most of them have a sexual orientation, a sexual preference that they're aroused by. That's what these terms mean. Sexual orientation, who you get aroused by, is actually a more straightforward characteristic than gender identity. people might not know who they are, but they know what turns them on
I don't know what the overall stats are for sexual preference among paedos. It'd be interesting to see if the comibined priest and scoutmaster numbers skew the results towards boys, or the creepy uncles and PE teachers tip the balance the other way
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 20 Jul 2024, 15:15,
Share,
Reply)
Ffs. The mechanics of the onion joke hinge on revulsion and ridicule of homosexual sex.
You can pretend otherwise if you want, if that’s the delusion that keeps you sane. You can pretend Joe Biden has all his marbles if you want. Just spare us your angry and inane sophistry. Haven’t you got a reading of kiddies’ books to toddlers by drag queens to attend? You’ve got to defend these gay rights or they’ll disappear forever!
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 13:02,
Share,
Reply)
as I said, it relies on the sophistication of its audience
rather than people like yourself who are revulsed by gay sex and assume other people must be so this is the point of the video. It's ok, there's other, simpler kinds of humour than satire where you don't get confused about what it all means
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 13:44,
Share,
Reply)
Yes mate. Jokes about felching rent boys are very sophisticated satire. Very sophisticated indeed. Yes sireee.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 13:54,
Share,
Reply)
quite fixating on that aspect, aren't you
it'd be like watching the Brass Eye bit about the dangers of Cake and assuming it's all about shaming drug users. I guess if you don't get it you don't get it
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 14:33,
Share,
Reply)
Yes mate. That onion vid was very sophisticated satire. Really arch invective.
You know you’ve exposed your idiocy, so now you claim I don’t get an entirely different sketch, about an entirely different subject. The Brass Eye sketch actually is sophisticated satire, that works on many levels, and contains much more parody (not the same thing as satire, although I doubt you know the difference). This is how your sophistry always goes, fatuity exposed, you try and shift the focus onto something else. Comparing that profoundly lowbrow and infantile onion skit to Brass Eye is just moronic. Brass Eye was so very funny because it was clever, but superficially appeared to be just silly. The onion is just puerile. The onion is much more your level.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 14:54,
Share,
Reply)
are you still going on?
"relying on the sophistication of the audience" just means that the producers are assuming the audience has sufficient intelligence not to mistake satire for direct comment. I know it's a subtle difference, between that and saying the satire is sophisticated, but that's why people do their english gsce.
They even explicitly signpost one joke just in case, with the newsreader saying "the average well adjusted gay man does not engage in spreading fecal matter...but these are particularly repressed". This isn't to add to the humour, but for the benefit of particularly slow viewers so that they won't misinterpret this as a comment about all gay men, though still operating somewhat above your level it seems.
I think the parallels are obvious between the two sketches, both pretend to be real news and mimic their respective country's formats and style, but both deal with a fictious subject, a fake drug crisis or gay prostitution surge, and both have targets that are real and hypocritical. The difference is the brass eye has less parody, using real celebrities to make its point while the onion uses actors to play the prostitutes. Bernard manning is not parodying himself, he's genuinely taken in by the fake premise. I know these terms can be difficult. As to your opinion about the two shows, thanks for sharing, but I'd put a bit more stock in someone who demonstrates they understand them first.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 23:43,
Share,
Reply)
Am I still going on?
Bit rich from the most long winded bore on /links. Just do a word count mate. I’m surprised you hadn’t done your old trick of deleting the most fatuous of your replies. Anyway can’t talk now- I’m trying to understand the sophisticated satire of the onion. Republicans are coprophiliacs! What could it possibly mean?
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 20 Jul 2024, 15:45,
Share,
Reply)
Good, you’ll get there eventually
We all learn at our own speeds
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 20 Jul 2024, 23:46,
Share,
Reply)
another "I know you are but what am I?" level retort from Tony
I'll file that one along with "No, Your values are entirely transactional" in the 'Can't think of any counterargument' folder
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 19 Jul 2024, 14:41,
Share,
Reply)