Dumai wrote (edited )

"The materialism of this last century was predominantly mechanical, because at that time, of all natural sciences, mechanics and indeed only the mechanics of solid bodies—celestial and terrestrial—in short, the mechanics of gravity, had come to any definite close. Chemistry at that time existed only in its infantile, phlogistic form. Biology still lay in swaddling clothes; vegetable and animal organisms had been only roughly examined and were explained as the result of purely mechanical causes. As the animal was to Descartes, so was man a machine to the materialists of the eighteenth century. This exclusive application of the standards of mechanics to processes of a chemical and organic nature—in which processes, it is true, the laws of mechanics are also valid, but are pushed into the background by other and higher laws—constitutes a specific but at that time inevitable limitation of classical French materialism.

The second specific limitation of this materialism lay in its inability to comprehend the universe as a process—as matter developing in an historical process. This was in accordance with the level of the natural science of that time, and with the metaphysical, i.e., anti-dialectical manner of philosophising connected with it. Nature, it was known, was in constant motion. But according to the ideas of that time, this motion turned eternally in a circle and therefore never moved from the spot; it produced the same results over and over again."

  • Friedrich Engels

Reply to by !deleted14296

Dumai wrote

mostly an absurd joke about the way political identities are deployed on the internet, from what i've seen

on the other hand you could use it as a more-than-slightly churlish epithet for platformists


Dumai OP wrote (edited )

okay, i can actually appreciate that my original post wasn't confrontational enough and might be confusing to read if you're not familiar with the specific way this rhetoric has been mobilised on the internet recently

i took a more socratic approach because (and this the really stunning thing for me) people i actually like and respect, people who actually belong to the lgbt community and have confronted homophobia in their own lives, were absolutely prepared to concede that gay male culture is predatory! and like... what am i meant to do with this? how am i meant to show them this discourse has literally gotten people murdered?

the answer is: i probably can't if i don't want to accept i will likely lose these friendships, so i'm probably gonna have to burn some bridges if i ever want to feel safe again. i think that's a little clearer to me now.

Because, if someone says, "Yes, it's fair because it makes me uncomfortable," where do you go next?

i'd probably call them a homophobe and outline why, tbh!

i also think there's a world of difference between "gay men like straight men" and "gay men are actively preying on straight men, manipulating and coercing straight men, and they need to learn to ~~respect the sexuality of others". that rhetorical move is mostly what i'm trying to respond to.


Dumai OP wrote (edited )

However, starting out with the premise of "gay men pathologically try to have sex with straight men" means starting from part of a group of assumptions that almost surely behind me being figuratively and literally gay-bashed in high school for merely existing.

this is pretty much the point i (op) am trying to make

to be clear, "[there is] a pathological compulsion, endemic to gay men and gay male culture, to manipulate the sexuality of straight dudes" is not a summary of my own views. it is, however, something i notice many people (including people who aren't cishet) seem to believe in the wake of certain accusations made against a certain youtuber! and it's fucking terrifying!


Dumai OP wrote

okay. so is it fair to say gay men are doing this? is it fair to point to the time-honoured tradition of gay men pining for straight (or questioning etc. etc.) guys as evidence this is happening?

or... is something else happening when people are ready to believe there is an appreciable effort on the part of gay men to "convert" (or perhaps "recruit") straight men?


Dumai OP wrote

to say there's "no gender power dynamic" and then to say there's a "patriarchal entitlement" at play is kinda weird

i mean, its fine to flirt with someone, but not taking a no very well & thinking you can change someone's sexuality is entitled and creepy

the point of the question i'm (rhetorically) posing is to ask whether gay men are trying to "change straight men's sexuality"

and how did we get from "a lot gay dudes are into straight men" to "a lot of gay dudes are harassing straight men"?


Dumai OP wrote (edited )

i'm obviously talking here about some fairly recent internet drama that is mostly dead now

but what i mostly want to talk about is how many self-described radical or "progressive" people i know, not all of them straight or cis, were perfectly willing to accept that "gay men are COMING FOR OUR STRAIGHT DUDES" is not a homophobic statement! or even entertain the notion that it could be used to do harm! or recognise that it has been used to do harm


Dumai OP wrote

not saying these problems apply everywhere, nor am i even saying they haven't been noticed by anprims (some of them were recognised as issues from the very start of their movement, even!), but they are... definitely present lol


Dumai wrote (edited )

hbomberguy's measured response series doesn't really have much educational value tbh. his purpose in that series is basically to deflate the online right with mockery, so if you aren't familiar with the context of his subject matter you won't get much out of it other than "davis aurini is comically ignorant" and "jontron cannot pronounce the word communist"

he's mostly there to point and laugh, which is not a bad thing (hbomberguy has said/done many bad things outside of that) but i'm not sure how useful he'd be for op