/lit/ - Literature

>>10952829

And Jordan Peterson posting persists

I wanted to know what anon was saying about women and gays. I always thought there was something innately wrong about the way women let gays into their circle and treat them, like it was super insidious.

I didn't read the thread and my first instinct would be that it would've been a shitshow, but yeah mods do that all the time. So many fun and interesting threads killed.

>>10952880
I suppose in a sense things need to die for new things to come to life. By killing a thread about gays, they have potentially sent the posters into new threads about new topics, or even out into the world to teach their ideas to others.

>>10951890
Killua!
>>10952888
how apostolic

What's up with the shitty rapper threads? Those stay up for days on end.

>>10952829
That’s because we’re the smart board and we must remain vigilant against /pol/tards diluting our line with their rat-like inferiority.

>>10952896
There are many intelligent reasons to oppose homosexuality and not many reasons to support it, which is ironic given those it seems to infect.

>>10952863

Have you ever felt uncomfortable around a gay man because i) you knew he sexually desired you and ii) you know he could physically overpower you?

That is how women feel about straight men in general. Gay men are a relief to them because they know they are not sexually desired, therefore they can lower their guard.

>>10952899
What are some intelligent reasons to oppose it? And please, spare me the religious bullshit.

>>10952905
>>/lit/thread/S10951779

>>10952905
Also, religion is a perfectly good reason.
>>10952906
(Skip all the trash posts, desu it's not a surprise the thread was deleted.)

>>10952895
/pol/tards take the bait and the whole thread just becomes arguing about niggers. That's why they stay up so long.

>>10952905

The thread can be summarized as such:

I, a gay anon, posted an argument against homosexuality as an exercise. Basically I argued that if you accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle you have to accept gender fluidity, the abolition of gender roles, the fact that reproduction is optional, and the concept that the nuclear family is not necessarily the best way to raise kids.

Many people took this and ran off with it using it as a springboard for arguments about degeneracy and imminent social collapse.

Then someone came around and started talking about how homosexuality is a first step towards a post-gender, post-reproductive communist society because our current social order is inherently patriarchal to the core.

And then it turned into shitposting about anus babies and how men kissing is gross.

>>10951878
>>10952379
I slightly disagree with this reading of the right. I think it's sound, but saying "societal value X is not accepted because it's perceived to be a trojan horse leading to societal value Y" without explaining why societal value Y is disliked is just kicking the can down the road.

Suppose you're in a grocery store picking out your favorite kind of juice, but, you're allergic to everything but orange juice. If you tell your friends "Orange juice is my hands down favorite kind of juice--" they're going to point out that it's really just the only thing you're physically able to drink. Maybe they'd be more convinced if there were at least two kinds of juice you can drink, Grape and Orange, but they're still going to tell you you've got a rather small sample space. Had you lacked those allergies, you might have liked a different flavor more.

Consider the implications this reasoning carries when applied to the selection of life partners and the effects sexuality has on said selection. If you're a straight married male, it's entirely possible that there could have been a partner who you would have loved more if you were gay or bisexual. It's a fact that you carry this epistemic uncertainty with you. You might want to say that your sexuality is an essential property and that there isn't even a possibility, but the fact that animals can change roles on a whim suggests that it's just coincidental.

This explains why god-giveness/predestination always comes up, why Gays discriminate against Bisexuals instead of the reverse (LGBT+ is obviously written in order of importance), etc; when a person see someone else exercise a freedom the person themselves doesn't have, they get mad about it. It's fag envy.

>>10952904
I've never met a gay man who could physically overpower me.

>>10952829
What was the thread number so I can read it on the archives

>>10952880
based black swan

>>10952896
>We do not tolerate intollerant views

>>10952926
>>10951779

>>10952829
I seriously doubt that thread was interesting or belonged on /lit/

>>10952922

Most straight people don't think about their lives that way, because to them the idea of being in a gay romantic relationship is simply not possible. Most people don't arrive at the conclusion "oh if only I had been bi I would've met my soulmate."

>>10952896

>>10952937
it's just subconscious

>>10952923

It was a thought exercise designed to help you empathize with women anon, you failed it when you instead felt the need to parade your all-important masculinity

>>10952896
>we’re the smart board

>>10952947
The previous thread was full of plenty of very smart posts on why homosexuality is bad. It is a shame that these posts have gone.

>>10952947
Grading on a curve, yes.

>>10952906
Oh, so the thread wasn't even pretending to be about literature. Glad it got deleted.

>>10952945
No I get it I just took a minor quip at your wording, which I'd only really do on 4chan because it doesn't disturb discourse that muh

>>10952954
> Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/
Should it have gone on /his/?

>>10952954
It was asking about arguments, presumebaly ones written in literature.

>>10952957
Should have gone to /lgbt/.

>>10952957

It should have gone on /pol/. It was not a sophisticated discussion on homosexuality, it was "lel degeneracy and social darwinism"

>>10952966
I'm pretty sure /lgbt/ came to us.

>>10952969
>lel degeneracy and social darwinism
It wasn't. You've just taken your own perspective, that you disagreed with the arguments, and therefore decided that it somehow has no merit.
What is unsophisticated about the discussion of purpose, the family,
the nature of having children, etc? In your mind, is the only serious discussion "lol we individuals do what we want"?
Many of the worst posts were from promosexuals.
>it should have been on /pol/
In other words just put it in the echo chamber board and never allow any serious opposition to homosexuality.

>>10952975
>What is unsophisticated about the discussion of purpose
the discussion of purpose

>>10952975
>teleology

>>10952975

The most interesting points in that thread were being made by radical homosexuals who believe that queerness necessitates the detonation of the family unit, the institution of marriage, the end of gender roles, etc.

>>10952985
I keep teological definitions of truth under my bed to spring on unwitting empiricists