The vore thing is exactly why we need to bring back shame. I will absolutely shame you for that. It’s disgusting and there’s a lot of similar shit out there on the internet and everyone who enjoys it should hate themselves just a little more after indulging themselves in it.
And talking about it with other freaks is so much worse! Keep your sickness to yourself! Jesus Christ nobody needs to know about that!
I think the other thing is that there’s a difference between having a kink and spending all your time online indulging your kink, especially when it’s violent. I think that’s what is kind of fucked up. I think if somebody has a kink where something pops in their head and they’re kind of freaked out by it because they think it is hot, that’s when people don’t need to be shamed. But if you’re spending all your time on the Internet, writing fantasies about eating women and it is your main hobby, that’s pretty fucked up.
The problem becomes when shame is part of the kink! When They seek out being shamed / getting a reaction for boners how do you respond? Not responding isn’t good, responding gets them off.’ There’s no good move!
A lot of fucked up fetishes are connected to furry fandom — vore, diaper stuff, expansion, feederism, giant/ess worship, etc. these things exist independently of the furry scene but it seems there’s an over representation of furries within weird niche fetishes. I think paraphilias and weird fetishes kind of just exist in the same circles online and as a result there’s sort of a normalization that happens when you set foot through just being a furry or having a niche fetish.
It’s part of it but it’s sometimes taken to some really extreme and disgusting places…
I’m glad (???) my only compulsion is digging and finding out what depraved weird stuff people are into. It’s horrifying but also fascinating to see what people are into and (maybe) why.
Has the opposite effect on me and that's one of the reasons I had to crawl out of the trans rabbit hole. That whole thing exposed me to so many things I never needed to know about.
Uhh I need to share this because it’s somewhat related and I don’t know if K&J have ever covered it but it seems sorta barpod adjacent (also involved some expansion related…elements)
100% agree. My take is “shame” is just a societal tool. It isn’t inherently bad to shame someone, it is just the flip side to “praise”, which isn’t inherently good. They’re both just tools to keep society from veering off into insanity.
They’re both greatest pushback I get on this is if you take it to an example and say “you should shame a 40 year old who has never had a job and are just sitting in their parents basement playing video games all day”. In this case people go “shaming them isn’t helpful”. My response to that is “do you think if they made a step in the right direction praising them for that could be helpful?”. If they think it could be I think that their worldview has just entirely been corrupted and they aren’t seeing anything clearly. Again, they’re both just tools. Just because someone is in a sad state and you feel bad for them doesn’t mean a tool loses its purpose.
I 100% support shame and I also support praise. They should both be used with reasonable thought and judgment. In this case, 100% agree these people should be shamed. Disgusting, weird, outlandish, inappropriate behavior. If they feel the shame and still decide that’s what they’re in to, more power to them. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed to get into the stuff. I’m saying I never want like a coworker to think it is socially acceptable to start talking about their vore preferences to me. People should feel shame and society should shame them so that does not occur.
I do wish they wouldn't use female pronouns for trans identifying men who are displaying uniquely male fantasies of violence. Particularly violence against against women. It seems to add to the misogyny.
They've addressed this before. They're trying to be logically consistent; they think it's hypocritical to only use preferred pronouns for people you like. Even if I disagree with it, it's an understandable stance.
Maybe I missed where they made it clear Jessica Robert’s was a trans woman, but it the behavior and fantasies were super confusing till they talked about her lady penis.
Then I was like ohhhh, ok.
They should make it more clear. . . For the reporting sake.
Sometimes when I hear about the vandalism, I feel like wondering if this shit is just Astroturfed because it’s so dumb because all it does is make Musk seem vaguely sympathetic. He’s losing a huge amount of money because it’s embarrassing to own a tesla and that’s enough.
Tesla stock dropping by a penny hurts Elon far more than burning 1000 cybertrucks.
As long as anyone claiming to be "antifascist" more or less gets a pass from most of the media for engaging in tactics and activities which would otherwise best be described as "fascists", especially the use of threats and violence against anyone they've decided is somehow (even if by simply owning a car) supporting a person or idea they find objectionable. If they were honest, they'd ditch the moniker "Antifascist" and adopt "Counterfascist" instead.
Nobody anywhere is required to like or support Elon (maybe if they want to work for SpaceX, unless that's a secondary result and causation is going the other way), but it's definitely worth noting (as Jessie sort of mentioned) that most Teslas whcih are more than 2-3 years old were bought at a time when Musk had a somewhat messianic status among many progressives including a portion of the tech industry silo and Hollywood.
I'd love for anyone to come up with an explanation that would help me understand why anyone would actually want a Cybertruck, but that has nothing at all to do with Musk.
My biggest question for Musk is why he would apparently use the exact same steel for the body of the cybertruck and for the structure of his "biggest rocket ever built", especially when it's an alloy that even "budget" bicycle manufacturers upgraded from (to a different alloy with a better strenght-weight ratio) 30+ years ago?
I mean leftists have hated Elon for many years at this point, long before Elon ever said anything about Trump, and long before he bought Twitter or was involved in politics or the culture war.
They hated him because he was a rich straight white man, that didn't apologize for his own existence, and because wasn't woke (though he wasn't actively anti-woke at that point).
If you're rich and famous and white, especially a straight white male, then you MUST engage in frequent virtue signaling, so that we know that you're on the right team, and that despite being rich & powerful, you're one of the good ones.
He didn't do that, so we knew he was bad, even atva time where we couldn't point to a single specific bad thing that he'd done or even said..
It's true that good progressives who were well off still bought his cars until very recently, despite not liking him, because they're nice cars (at least as far as electric cars go). But it was in spite of their feelings about Elon.
Some of the deepest identitarians and "intersectional" believers may have felt that way about Musk, but until he publicly waljed away from the Dems, there were many who revered him for how much he had done in the field of "green" tech, and owning a Tesla was a status symbol in many leftist circles (hence all the "I bought this before Elon went nuts" stickers), and that reverence for Elon and his companies led to people believing for months that the "hyperloop" concept for rapid travel around CA was at some level viable (and in some cases even buying into the idea that scores of miles-long tunnels would be practical in such seismically active territory). The left were largely the investors who initiallly drove the market cap of Tesla to be higher than GM, despite Tesla producing less than 1% as many cars as the much larger and older company.
On Bleuski (yes, I’m spending time there lately, do not shame me for my new kink!), someone suggested that there could be agents provocateur helping to drive the violence. That seems like a reasonable theory, although there are also plenty of absolute turnips on the antifa far left.
Wait, you're saying you think it's reasonable that these Tesla attacks are a false flag designed to drum up sympathy for Elon? I don't think I'm hearing this correctly.
I'm sure. In many places, owning a Tesla now makes you less physically safe, and certainly makes your car and even home far more likely to be vandalized.
I wouldn't be surprised if insurance rates for Teslas now increase as well..
…I don’t know if you’re just making an observation or to justify this as a valid protest. But, what you just described is definitional terrorism.
*In its simplest form, terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to instill fear and achieve political or ideological goals*
*Terrorism aims to create a climate of fear and intimidation, often targeting civilians to exert pressure on governments or societies*
I agree terrorism is quite effective at creating societal change if used effectively. I also do not want to buy a car if I have to worry about some crazed lunatic rubbing their feces on it, let alone worry about it getting Molotov cocktailed. But that’s not a reaction to protest, that is being threatened and intimidated into making a different action.
Yes, an observation about the impact of protest. Certainly not an endorsement.
Definitions are never as clear cut as people want them to be, but I don’t think terrorism is actually that effective from what I’ve read. In this case the only reason it would be effective, I think, is not the low probability of getting feces on the car, but the idea that lefties in good standing now look down on people driving teslas (which these high profile actions help highlight).
I don’t get why Jesse and Katie and so many of the comments are going to Elon and a reaction or impact from/to him. These aren’t attacks on Elon no matter how deranged the people doing them think they are, they’re attacks on individuals. That’s fucking horrendous.
If the owner of a window pane manufacturer was a piece of shit, it does not give people any justification at all or any moral basis to start throwing rocks through peoples homes or burning homes to the ground to *protest* (what an absolutely abysmal misnomer in this context) the window manufacturer.
You are just assaulting an individual, you’re not protesting shit. I know clarity on this type of action got completely fucked to oblivion in 2020, but I think it’s time to bring back some sanity. Assaulting individuals and destroying their property is/has literally never been a valid form of protest. If you want to hang some bullshit euphemism on it, maybe you can attempt to use rebellion. It’s sure as shit not protest.
I don’t think protesting Tesla makes much sense. Musk sucks but not because of anything he’s done with Tesla. It would make more sense to protest Twitter.
Yeah Gen Z is super prudish in many respects. As older gen z myself I would never share explicit pictures online precisely because I’ve seen the consequence of that shit.
That 20% is obviously an underestimate / not directly comparable since gene has had far fewer years and relationships to have EVER sent a naughty pic compared to the older generations.
I would guess by the time GenZ is boomer age that % will be higher than the current boomers, however prudish GenZ are.
I agree. I'm 26 and I've never even taken a picture of myself undressed, let alone sent one, because I know the risks of things like revenge porn and I know that the internet is forever.
Ditto. I think it’s a no-brainer for Millennials and older that the internet is not like interacting in real life, anything out there is out there forever and you don’t send compromising material through it. But for people who grew up with the internet being ubiquitous from childhood, there’s no real world/internet divide.
I love Dan, but he's been saying this for at least ten years and it never materialized. AFAIK there are no risqué pics of Jon Ossoff or AOC floating around.
And let's be honest, privately sending a snap or two (even if they get shared widely without your consent) is in a whole different league than having an OF and sharing your nudes on reddit (!)
Same age, same lack of pic sending experience. When I was 18/19 I went on my (very churchy) best friend’s MySpace page and her recent ex had posted topless pics of her on her page. I obviously had to tell her. They weren’t particularly explicit, but it absolutely ruined her life at the time. And she was never really friends with me again, which sucked for me! I don’t think she’s used social media since. Other than that, I don’t think many of my friends (women anyway) have ever sent anything explicit.
Reading these comments is funny to me. I am 31. In 10th grade I got my first phone (an LG Scoop). I was sending/receiving all sorts of low pixel nudity. And then snapchat in college. Great tool for this type of thing. It is not often, but sometimes if my wife is trying to send pics of clothes in a changing room for my opinion, I might get something a little risque.
I looked it up. It comes from generational studies like the US General Social Survey. The decline is sexual activity and age of becoming sexually active has been going on for a few generations.
There is a quite wonderful post on Ovarit that I came across after the first Ana Valens episode when I went to look up whether the tweet I saw years ago about the terf breeding farm was still up. (It is.) The post points out the contrast between people like Valens – indeed, literally Valens – accusing cis people of being obsessed with genitals, then posting fantasies about breeding farms.
I saw today that Ovarit is closing down in a matter of a week or two. Posters were being urged to save anything that mattered to them. It looks like the site will shut down entirely and not be left up in an archived form, which is understandable considering that it would be a target for vandalism.
I'm sad to hear that. Ovarit was a haven after r/GenderCritical was booted off of Reddit. (Because it's fine to have any number of sadistic porn subs, but not one for women who don't believe that men can be women).
I think that GC subs are making a comeback though- there's one called Fourthwave something that's delightfully terfy. The barpod sub is of course pretty good too.
I used to post on Ovarit back when it first opened, but had forgotten about it, and just the other day was wondering if it's still up. Why is it being shut down?
Ok, that's better than it getting forcibly shut down. I can see running a whole website as a labour of love pretty exhausting and thankless. Whoever the admin is has been amazing.
Another thing I found when I was trying to track down that old tweet is what appears to be Ana Valens’ main website - did cancellation go so far as to destroy an otherwise brilliant career as a writer?
The site is brimming with anime girldick pics, vore, breeding kink, and other forms of nonconsensual smut. You’ve been warned. https://acvalens.net/audio/
For a long time, sex researchers have known that transvestic fetishism is associated with violent sexuality, but we're now not allowed to say it, even as these fucking psychopaths post publicly about their fetish of killing women and babies and turning them into "titty fat". Buffalo Bill portrayed a real phenomenon. That's what these men are. They hate women more than the usual male-identified garden variety misogynist. Their hatred of us is hysterical, extreme, intensified by a pathological jealousy. They pose a genuine physical risk to women and girls.
Thank you for pointing out that transvestic fetishism is correlated with other maladaptive sexual behaviors. There's fucking abundant literature on this but in the last ten years of all psychology has gotten collective amnesia for it.
No fantasies aren't crime, nor should we shame people for their thoughts. Once you write those thoughts and fantasies online, however, you are making them public and open to judgement
Don't tell me if I'm confused or not. I was confused. I could not figure out if the people they were talking about were biological males or females. That's the problem with this pronoun nonsense is it makes communication impossible.
It actually confuses me too. I don’t know anyone who talks like that irl so my brain has not been retrained to think of “they” as potentially singular or “she” as potentially a male etc. I get the position they’re taking on pronoun usage but it would be less confusing if they just repeated the person’s actual name instead of using pronouns at all.
I think they could keep the policy in general, but modify it by excluding clearly insincere "tws", e.g. those with "arrest onset dysphoria", convicted rapists, and men who fantasise about rape... you can't possibly be dysphoric if you fantasise about using your penis in a sexual assault.
It really gets in the way of reporting on reality though, to the point that any sociological analysis of this internet bullshit by K&J is practically non-existent: if all we are told is that people are posting their fantasies about raping, killing and eating people, then what can we really know about which people do this and which people are their preferred victims? Some people are sexually violent towards other specific people, but it's just some people, and who knows which ones or why.
To be fair, even in this episode Katie had a throwaway line about cis women never doing this. So it’s not like the awareness of the biological factor in motivating this stuff isn’t there. They’re uncomfortable harping on it for a mix of reasons, and how justifiable some or any of the reasons might be will depend on your general shade of perspective on the whole gender political phenomenon.
I have to admit, it speaks to the strength of Katie and Jesse's convictions that they still she/her trans-identified males even after reporting on the sick shit many of them get off on. At what point are they going to acknowledge that there's a pattern here? Paraphilias are known to cluster, so it makes sense that a lot of AGPs are into all kinds of sick shit, often involving violence against women. How can someone say they "just want to pee" with a straight face when so many of these guys openly fantasize about raping and murdering "cis" women? Fascinating how TIMs suddenly remember what "female" is when it's time to victimize somebody, or fantasize about it at the very least. This is why it's so sick when they make violent threats against people like Jesse and JKR; you just know they're getting off on it.
In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with the thing Dan Savage said about judgement, though I object to some of his other generalizations; a laissez-faire attitude towards nudes being proliferated online is a much easier stance for him to take as a man, because the social fallout is way lesser for him than it would be for a woman. But yes, if a candidate or elected official l has a fetish for cannibalism or killing minorities, I absolutely want to know about it, because it would be a determining factor in how I vote. I don't care how much the fetishist thinks he can "compartmentalize," you don't develop a fetish for killing marginalized people without being a bigot on some level.
Dan Savage has no idea how most people actually conduct themselves. He actually thinks that most people share nudes online and have a sexual presence online, which is nuts.
I do think he’s exaggerating for effect when he says “everyone” is posting nudes. But i think He does have a point when he says it’s bound to increase in frequency when everyone over the age of 13 has a porn production facility in their pocket now.
Dan has always had a skewed perspective as a gay man, where these behaviors are pretty ubiquitous, Because it is a hyper male community. Still he is relatively realistic about differences between men and women when push comes to shove.
Sorry all, I’m disgusted. Why should we treat Valens or the city council appointee differently from any other male who openly fantasizes about raping women and murdering babies in front of their mothers? Because they bought a wig and fake breasts? Because they’re taking hormones?
Oh, no, that’s right: because they “feel” like women. Okay, super!
I’m a live and let live kind of person, but I’m pretty sick of chosen identities obscuring the actual reality of the situation: these are men who hate women, and they should be judged accordingly.
Why confuse libertinism with liberty? It’s not okay that people who have violent fantasies and express them publicly (part of the kink) are viewed as liberated—they are disregulated libertines who cannot control themselves. That undermines their ability to serve as sober, thoughtful, concerned public servants.
Back in the day, Reagan’s divorce from Jane Wyman was considered a political liability. Now we’re debating if a man with publicly displayed sexual fetishes is being “cancelled” because constituents are concerned that he is not a stable rational person. It’s not cancellation to reject unqualified candidates—it’s politics.
Right. I don't care about "lack of judgement" due to posting dumb stuff online. Dumb I could forgive, depending on the context. Publicly sharing your violent sexual fantasies about murdering women and babies and flushing their remails down the toilet as shit? No. You are an objectively fucking evil person. Stay away from public service, stay away from all normal humans, preferably leave the planet.
Only psychopaths have sexual fantasies about something so sick and grotesque.
That's what I was thinking, I'm not a specialist but this definitely feels like psychopathy (one prominent aspect of it being the total lack of empathy/the sadism). I honestly had such a profound sense of unease when they read the "promptly flushed into the sewers" comment. This is the sort of evil shit you would read in a Stephen King novel, Jesus fucking Christ.
It reeks of hatred. Men who jack off to the absolute worst thing imaginable should be in a maximum security facility for the criminally insane. To hum and haw over whether it's ethical/illiberal to bar people like this from gaining positions of power and authority shows us just where "rationalism" is fundamentally lacking in a good dose of humanity and common sense.
Honestly I think Hanania is just an irrepressible but erudite troll and the stupid right just makes an excellent target, especially for a man who is perfectly happy to get down in the mud and engage with their ideas rather than recoiling in horror like most libs do when confronted by Captive Dreamer.
He will turn on progressives or liberals or anyone else so long as it’s entertaining.
Katie saying she wouldn't go out with a guy if she were straight and he came to pick her up in a Cybertruck truly convinces me that she hasn't the faintest interest in men.
Does he drive a Cybertruck? is not the question! Is he hot? Does he look nice in slacks and a button-down shirt? Is he gym buddies with Greg? Does he have a rich baritone voice that you'd like to listen to if he asks enough questions and doesn't talk too much about himself? These are the questions straight women ask!
If these priorities make a woman straight then I am definitely something else. Baritone voices are fine but i would like a guy with better judgement than one who would spend 100k for a vehicle that looks so much like a dumpster it tricks innocent raccoons.
I'm a straight woman. I wouldn't date a guy with a Cybertruck, because it demonstrates that he has horrible judgement and is obsessed with wasting money on status symbols. That's the kind of guy who will cheat on you the first chance he gets, trust.
I've long imagined a scenario where Katie is sitting under a coconut tree at Kamala Harrs' house. After getting bonked on the head with a coconut, Katie wakes up liking men. She then immediately processes her love for Jesse. She even agrees to procreate.
A Cybertruck per se wouldn't do it for me -- it reads to me as attention-seeking, which I find unattractive in a man-- but a Model X would impress me, absolutely.
The vore thing is exactly why we need to bring back shame. I will absolutely shame you for that. It’s disgusting and there’s a lot of similar shit out there on the internet and everyone who enjoys it should hate themselves just a little more after indulging themselves in it.
And talking about it with other freaks is so much worse! Keep your sickness to yourself! Jesus Christ nobody needs to know about that!
I think the other thing is that there’s a difference between having a kink and spending all your time online indulging your kink, especially when it’s violent. I think that’s what is kind of fucked up. I think if somebody has a kink where something pops in their head and they’re kind of freaked out by it because they think it is hot, that’s when people don’t need to be shamed. But if you’re spending all your time on the Internet, writing fantasies about eating women and it is your main hobby, that’s pretty fucked up.
The problem becomes when shame is part of the kink! When They seek out being shamed / getting a reaction for boners how do you respond? Not responding isn’t good, responding gets them off.’ There’s no good move!
Shame sadism while we're at it. Might capture a lot of pro-shame people, though, so...
This episode made me reconsider defending free speech. Seriously. I don't think groups of people should normalize this stuff for each other.
Vore is bad but furry vore is the absolute worst internet.
A lot of fucked up fetishes are connected to furry fandom — vore, diaper stuff, expansion, feederism, giant/ess worship, etc. these things exist independently of the furry scene but it seems there’s an over representation of furries within weird niche fetishes. I think paraphilias and weird fetishes kind of just exist in the same circles online and as a result there’s sort of a normalization that happens when you set foot through just being a furry or having a niche fetish.
What all those things have in common is alienation from one’s actual physical self. We gotta touch more grass as a species.
What is expansion? I dare not google
Probably the same as inflation?
Typically from what I’ve seen like nutting so much you “inflate” the recipient.
If that’s the same thing it’s more tame than some of the worst things out there.
But again, knowing the internet, I’m sure some freaks have made it worse somehow.
It’s part of it but it’s sometimes taken to some really extreme and disgusting places…
I’m glad (???) my only compulsion is digging and finding out what depraved weird stuff people are into. It’s horrifying but also fascinating to see what people are into and (maybe) why.
Has the opposite effect on me and that's one of the reasons I had to crawl out of the trans rabbit hole. That whole thing exposed me to so many things I never needed to know about.
This is half of why I listen to savage love! It’s weirdly fascinating, like looking at parasitic infections or something
Yeah it’s a lot!
Uhh I need to share this because it’s somewhat related and I don’t know if K&J have ever covered it but it seems sorta barpod adjacent (also involved some expansion related…elements)
https://nypost.com/2018/11/07/man-dies-after-injecting-silicone-in-genitals-mom-blames-sex-cult-master/
It always brought me down back in the day lol
“Good, meh, good, no, great, WHAT THE FUCK!”
The YouTube algorithm will feed it to you if you just tart clicking on stuff.
I legitimately felt sick listening to it.
100% agree. Shame has its place in a functioning society and for a well adjusted individual.
100% agree. My take is “shame” is just a societal tool. It isn’t inherently bad to shame someone, it is just the flip side to “praise”, which isn’t inherently good. They’re both just tools to keep society from veering off into insanity.
They’re both greatest pushback I get on this is if you take it to an example and say “you should shame a 40 year old who has never had a job and are just sitting in their parents basement playing video games all day”. In this case people go “shaming them isn’t helpful”. My response to that is “do you think if they made a step in the right direction praising them for that could be helpful?”. If they think it could be I think that their worldview has just entirely been corrupted and they aren’t seeing anything clearly. Again, they’re both just tools. Just because someone is in a sad state and you feel bad for them doesn’t mean a tool loses its purpose.
I 100% support shame and I also support praise. They should both be used with reasonable thought and judgment. In this case, 100% agree these people should be shamed. Disgusting, weird, outlandish, inappropriate behavior. If they feel the shame and still decide that’s what they’re in to, more power to them. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed to get into the stuff. I’m saying I never want like a coworker to think it is socially acceptable to start talking about their vore preferences to me. People should feel shame and society should shame them so that does not occur.
I do wish they wouldn't use female pronouns for trans identifying men who are displaying uniquely male fantasies of violence. Particularly violence against against women. It seems to add to the misogyny.
agree agree agree agree
They've addressed this before. They're trying to be logically consistent; they think it's hypocritical to only use preferred pronouns for people you like. Even if I disagree with it, it's an understandable stance.
They could avoid this problem by never using 'preferred pronouns', and only describing people in accordance with their actual biological sex.
Then don't use them. Be accurate.
A foolish contingency is the hobgoblin of a little mind as Emerson said.
I think this is a point worth them considering.
Case in point: "Her desire to spit roast women". Come the absolute fuck on, for god's sake.
Maybe I missed where they made it clear Jessica Robert’s was a trans woman, but it the behavior and fantasies were super confusing till they talked about her lady penis.
Then I was like ohhhh, ok.
They should make it more clear. . . For the reporting sake.
They did make it clear upfront. They said the CC appointed a trans woman, Jessica Roberts.
Ah, missed it. Passive listening for the win. I guess I just perked up when it got to the nitty gritty part and it was all she, her, etc.
I was thinking. Wow. Super weird fetish for a woman. Eating kids! Jesus. What woman thinks of turning children into breast fat!? And so on.
Amen to that!
Protesting against Tesla is legit. Targeting *individual Tesla owners* is psychotic.
Sometimes when I hear about the vandalism, I feel like wondering if this shit is just Astroturfed because it’s so dumb because all it does is make Musk seem vaguely sympathetic. He’s losing a huge amount of money because it’s embarrassing to own a tesla and that’s enough.
Tesla stock dropping by a penny hurts Elon far more than burning 1000 cybertrucks.
As long as anyone claiming to be "antifascist" more or less gets a pass from most of the media for engaging in tactics and activities which would otherwise best be described as "fascists", especially the use of threats and violence against anyone they've decided is somehow (even if by simply owning a car) supporting a person or idea they find objectionable. If they were honest, they'd ditch the moniker "Antifascist" and adopt "Counterfascist" instead.
Nobody anywhere is required to like or support Elon (maybe if they want to work for SpaceX, unless that's a secondary result and causation is going the other way), but it's definitely worth noting (as Jessie sort of mentioned) that most Teslas whcih are more than 2-3 years old were bought at a time when Musk had a somewhat messianic status among many progressives including a portion of the tech industry silo and Hollywood.
It's absurd that people have to justify the kind of car they have to the public. Who cares why they have a Tesla? It's not anyone else's business.
I'd love for anyone to come up with an explanation that would help me understand why anyone would actually want a Cybertruck, but that has nothing at all to do with Musk.
My biggest question for Musk is why he would apparently use the exact same steel for the body of the cybertruck and for the structure of his "biggest rocket ever built", especially when it's an alloy that even "budget" bicycle manufacturers upgraded from (to a different alloy with a better strenght-weight ratio) 30+ years ago?
I mean leftists have hated Elon for many years at this point, long before Elon ever said anything about Trump, and long before he bought Twitter or was involved in politics or the culture war.
They hated him because he was a rich straight white man, that didn't apologize for his own existence, and because wasn't woke (though he wasn't actively anti-woke at that point).
If you're rich and famous and white, especially a straight white male, then you MUST engage in frequent virtue signaling, so that we know that you're on the right team, and that despite being rich & powerful, you're one of the good ones.
He didn't do that, so we knew he was bad, even atva time where we couldn't point to a single specific bad thing that he'd done or even said..
It's true that good progressives who were well off still bought his cars until very recently, despite not liking him, because they're nice cars (at least as far as electric cars go). But it was in spite of their feelings about Elon.
Some of the deepest identitarians and "intersectional" believers may have felt that way about Musk, but until he publicly waljed away from the Dems, there were many who revered him for how much he had done in the field of "green" tech, and owning a Tesla was a status symbol in many leftist circles (hence all the "I bought this before Elon went nuts" stickers), and that reverence for Elon and his companies led to people believing for months that the "hyperloop" concept for rapid travel around CA was at some level viable (and in some cases even buying into the idea that scores of miles-long tunnels would be practical in such seismically active territory). The left were largely the investors who initiallly drove the market cap of Tesla to be higher than GM, despite Tesla producing less than 1% as many cars as the much larger and older company.
This feels like some rose-colored remembrance. He may not have been woke but he was woke enough and said shit he never would today.
https://fortune.com/2022/06/02/elon-musk-tesla-lgbtq-hrc-corporate-equality-index-personal-choices/
I'm pretty sure that Elon, like Trump, still very much supports equal rights for LGBT people. That's not woke.
The problem is when some of them (mainly the Ts) want rights and privileges above and beyond what everyone else has.
I will say that I don’t think it’s Astroturfed . I just think it’s so stupid that it would seem like it’s Astroturfed
The was the same feeling I had when I saw the “I’m a real man” add during the election.
I was like, this has to be conservative trolling, and I was stunned when I found out it wasn’t.
On Bleuski (yes, I’m spending time there lately, do not shame me for my new kink!), someone suggested that there could be agents provocateur helping to drive the violence. That seems like a reasonable theory, although there are also plenty of absolute turnips on the antifa far left.
Just like the Oct 7 attacks: “It’s totally awesome and I hope it continues and also it’s definitely an astroturfed false flag operation.”
Wait, you're saying you think it's reasonable that these Tesla attacks are a false flag designed to drum up sympathy for Elon? I don't think I'm hearing this correctly.
Does it contribute to the dropping Tesla stock though? I know I’m less likely to buy a Tesla now than a few months ago if people will shame me for it.
I'm sure. In many places, owning a Tesla now makes you less physically safe, and certainly makes your car and even home far more likely to be vandalized.
I wouldn't be surprised if insurance rates for Teslas now increase as well..
…I don’t know if you’re just making an observation or to justify this as a valid protest. But, what you just described is definitional terrorism.
*In its simplest form, terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to instill fear and achieve political or ideological goals*
*Terrorism aims to create a climate of fear and intimidation, often targeting civilians to exert pressure on governments or societies*
I agree terrorism is quite effective at creating societal change if used effectively. I also do not want to buy a car if I have to worry about some crazed lunatic rubbing their feces on it, let alone worry about it getting Molotov cocktailed. But that’s not a reaction to protest, that is being threatened and intimidated into making a different action.
Yes, an observation about the impact of protest. Certainly not an endorsement.
Definitions are never as clear cut as people want them to be, but I don’t think terrorism is actually that effective from what I’ve read. In this case the only reason it would be effective, I think, is not the low probability of getting feces on the car, but the idea that lefties in good standing now look down on people driving teslas (which these high profile actions help highlight).
I don’t get why Jesse and Katie and so many of the comments are going to Elon and a reaction or impact from/to him. These aren’t attacks on Elon no matter how deranged the people doing them think they are, they’re attacks on individuals. That’s fucking horrendous.
If the owner of a window pane manufacturer was a piece of shit, it does not give people any justification at all or any moral basis to start throwing rocks through peoples homes or burning homes to the ground to *protest* (what an absolutely abysmal misnomer in this context) the window manufacturer.
You are just assaulting an individual, you’re not protesting shit. I know clarity on this type of action got completely fucked to oblivion in 2020, but I think it’s time to bring back some sanity. Assaulting individuals and destroying their property is/has literally never been a valid form of protest. If you want to hang some bullshit euphemism on it, maybe you can attempt to use rebellion. It’s sure as shit not protest.
I don’t think protesting Tesla makes much sense. Musk sucks but not because of anything he’s done with Tesla. It would make more sense to protest Twitter.
Dan Savage is in a bit of a bubble. I’m 40 and have never sent or received risqué pictures, either.
According to this source fewer than half of Gen Z, millennials, Gen X, and boomers have engaged in sending sexually explicit messages to someone they were dating: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1375794/us-adults-sexting-by-generation/
Millennials had the most at 37%, for Gen Z it was 20%.
Yeah Gen Z is super prudish in many respects. As older gen z myself I would never share explicit pictures online precisely because I’ve seen the consequence of that shit.
That 20% is obviously an underestimate / not directly comparable since gene has had far fewer years and relationships to have EVER sent a naughty pic compared to the older generations.
I would guess by the time GenZ is boomer age that % will be higher than the current boomers, however prudish GenZ are.
Probably yes, but I’m curious whether it will surpass Millenials.
I agree. I'm 26 and I've never even taken a picture of myself undressed, let alone sent one, because I know the risks of things like revenge porn and I know that the internet is forever.
Dan Savage is an expert on people with kinks, i'm not sure he is an expert on the rest (majority?) of the people.
Ditto. I think it’s a no-brainer for Millennials and older that the internet is not like interacting in real life, anything out there is out there forever and you don’t send compromising material through it. But for people who grew up with the internet being ubiquitous from childhood, there’s no real world/internet divide.
I love Dan, but he's been saying this for at least ten years and it never materialized. AFAIK there are no risqué pics of Jon Ossoff or AOC floating around.
And let's be honest, privately sending a snap or two (even if they get shared widely without your consent) is in a whole different league than having an OF and sharing your nudes on reddit (!)
Same age, same lack of pic sending experience. When I was 18/19 I went on my (very churchy) best friend’s MySpace page and her recent ex had posted topless pics of her on her page. I obviously had to tell her. They weren’t particularly explicit, but it absolutely ruined her life at the time. And she was never really friends with me again, which sucked for me! I don’t think she’s used social media since. Other than that, I don’t think many of my friends (women anyway) have ever sent anything explicit.
Same! I’ve never been on the apps, or online dated, either.
Reading these comments is funny to me. I am 31. In 10th grade I got my first phone (an LG Scoop). I was sending/receiving all sorts of low pixel nudity. And then snapchat in college. Great tool for this type of thing. It is not often, but sometimes if my wife is trying to send pics of clothes in a changing room for my opinion, I might get something a little risque.
Came here to say exactly this.
I thought fewer than 1/2 of Gen Z is even having any kind of sex at all.
I know some who are sexually active within committed, loving relationships. I wonder where they came up with that idea?
I looked it up. It comes from generational studies like the US General Social Survey. The decline is sexual activity and age of becoming sexually active has been going on for a few generations.
But Gen Z is the lowest by a long shot.
Like here's a study --> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066
I would hope so given some of them are 13 years old!
Lol too true, though the article I read were about 18 and over.
Damn— those trans women are not trying to beat the autogynephilia accusations.
Operation Let Them Speak continues..
There is a quite wonderful post on Ovarit that I came across after the first Ana Valens episode when I went to look up whether the tweet I saw years ago about the terf breeding farm was still up. (It is.) The post points out the contrast between people like Valens – indeed, literally Valens – accusing cis people of being obsessed with genitals, then posting fantasies about breeding farms.
I saw today that Ovarit is closing down in a matter of a week or two. Posters were being urged to save anything that mattered to them. It looks like the site will shut down entirely and not be left up in an archived form, which is understandable considering that it would be a target for vandalism.
Anyway, this is your chance to read a real gem of a thread on one of our new favorite BARPod characters: https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/376731/mass-rape-advocate-ana-valens-lurks-on-ovarit-and-reports-back-to-the-mary-sue
I'm sad to hear that. Ovarit was a haven after r/GenderCritical was booted off of Reddit. (Because it's fine to have any number of sadistic porn subs, but not one for women who don't believe that men can be women).
That vore subreddit is still on reddit and r/GenderCritical is banned. Make it make sense.
It makes sense if you understand that reddit is run by unwell men who will stop at nothing to protect their fantasies.
I think that GC subs are making a comeback though- there's one called Fourthwave something that's delightfully terfy. The barpod sub is of course pretty good too.
I used to post on Ovarit back when it first opened, but had forgotten about it, and just the other day was wondering if it's still up. Why is it being shut down?
Why is it getting shut down?
The admin is tired of running it. It requires quite a bit of effort and money
Ok, that's better than it getting forcibly shut down. I can see running a whole website as a labour of love pretty exhausting and thankless. Whoever the admin is has been amazing.
Sorry I didn't see this when I asked before. Kind of sad, but understandable.
God the salacious replies to his tweets in the archived threads... wtf.
Seriously. They’re not subtle and we’re letting them get away with it.
Another thing I found when I was trying to track down that old tweet is what appears to be Ana Valens’ main website - did cancellation go so far as to destroy an otherwise brilliant career as a writer?
The site is brimming with anime girldick pics, vore, breeding kink, and other forms of nonconsensual smut. You’ve been warned. https://acvalens.net/audio/
I'm just going to take your word for it I think
For a long time, sex researchers have known that transvestic fetishism is associated with violent sexuality, but we're now not allowed to say it, even as these fucking psychopaths post publicly about their fetish of killing women and babies and turning them into "titty fat". Buffalo Bill portrayed a real phenomenon. That's what these men are. They hate women more than the usual male-identified garden variety misogynist. Their hatred of us is hysterical, extreme, intensified by a pathological jealousy. They pose a genuine physical risk to women and girls.
That's why Buffalo Bill makes TRAs so angry. It's one of the most realistic onscreen depictions of AGP there's ever been.
Thank you for pointing out that transvestic fetishism is correlated with other maladaptive sexual behaviors. There's fucking abundant literature on this but in the last ten years of all psychology has gotten collective amnesia for it.
No fantasies aren't crime, nor should we shame people for their thoughts. Once you write those thoughts and fantasies online, however, you are making them public and open to judgement
If Ana Valens is actually a man then I'm really done with the hosts use of inaccurate pronouns. I'm so confused.
Please stop attributing this despicable male behavior to women.
This episode pissed me off A LOT on the pronoun front.
You're not confused, you just disagree with their policy. Which isn't going to change, never was, so deal, or indeed be done with them.
Don't tell me if I'm confused or not. I was confused. I could not figure out if the people they were talking about were biological males or females. That's the problem with this pronoun nonsense is it makes communication impossible.
I was confused.
It actually confuses me too. I don’t know anyone who talks like that irl so my brain has not been retrained to think of “they” as potentially singular or “she” as potentially a male etc. I get the position they’re taking on pronoun usage but it would be less confusing if they just repeated the person’s actual name instead of using pronouns at all.
I think they could keep the policy in general, but modify it by excluding clearly insincere "tws", e.g. those with "arrest onset dysphoria", convicted rapists, and men who fantasise about rape... you can't possibly be dysphoric if you fantasise about using your penis in a sexual assault.
It is grim and something that is always gonna wind me up, they won't change it though unfortunately
It really gets in the way of reporting on reality though, to the point that any sociological analysis of this internet bullshit by K&J is practically non-existent: if all we are told is that people are posting their fantasies about raping, killing and eating people, then what can we really know about which people do this and which people are their preferred victims? Some people are sexually violent towards other specific people, but it's just some people, and who knows which ones or why.
To be fair, even in this episode Katie had a throwaway line about cis women never doing this. So it’s not like the awareness of the biological factor in motivating this stuff isn’t there. They’re uncomfortable harping on it for a mix of reasons, and how justifiable some or any of the reasons might be will depend on your general shade of perspective on the whole gender political phenomenon.
He is, yeah. I made a joke in last episode's comments about how he looks like Garth from Wayne's World. And he really does, it's uncanny.
Five years! Wow, congratulations!
Thank you for your commitment to regurgitating the internet bullshit, making it digestible for us.
Like a mother penguin with her young
Like a mama ruminant, except with even more methane
A penguin-slash-mom with her trans egg
Blocked and Reported is old enough to go on puberty blockers now.
We could socially transition it to a YouTube show.
That Never Happens
As a father, I non-satirically want to toss all people who post about vore as a sexual fetish into a volcano.
Agree. Directly into a volcano.
I wouldn't worry if they bounced off the sides a bit on the way down.
I have to admit, it speaks to the strength of Katie and Jesse's convictions that they still she/her trans-identified males even after reporting on the sick shit many of them get off on. At what point are they going to acknowledge that there's a pattern here? Paraphilias are known to cluster, so it makes sense that a lot of AGPs are into all kinds of sick shit, often involving violence against women. How can someone say they "just want to pee" with a straight face when so many of these guys openly fantasize about raping and murdering "cis" women? Fascinating how TIMs suddenly remember what "female" is when it's time to victimize somebody, or fantasize about it at the very least. This is why it's so sick when they make violent threats against people like Jesse and JKR; you just know they're getting off on it.
In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with the thing Dan Savage said about judgement, though I object to some of his other generalizations; a laissez-faire attitude towards nudes being proliferated online is a much easier stance for him to take as a man, because the social fallout is way lesser for him than it would be for a woman. But yes, if a candidate or elected official l has a fetish for cannibalism or killing minorities, I absolutely want to know about it, because it would be a determining factor in how I vote. I don't care how much the fetishist thinks he can "compartmentalize," you don't develop a fetish for killing marginalized people without being a bigot on some level.
Dan Savage has no idea how most people actually conduct themselves. He actually thinks that most people share nudes online and have a sexual presence online, which is nuts.
I do think he’s exaggerating for effect when he says “everyone” is posting nudes. But i think He does have a point when he says it’s bound to increase in frequency when everyone over the age of 13 has a porn production facility in their pocket now.
Dan has always had a skewed perspective as a gay man, where these behaviors are pretty ubiquitous, Because it is a hyper male community. Still he is relatively realistic about differences between men and women when push comes to shove.
Sorry all, I’m disgusted. Why should we treat Valens or the city council appointee differently from any other male who openly fantasizes about raping women and murdering babies in front of their mothers? Because they bought a wig and fake breasts? Because they’re taking hormones?
Oh, no, that’s right: because they “feel” like women. Okay, super!
I’m a live and let live kind of person, but I’m pretty sick of chosen identities obscuring the actual reality of the situation: these are men who hate women, and they should be judged accordingly.
I swear, every day that goes by “Pronouns are Rohypnol” gets more and more real: https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
Yes. 100%. These men are sick pieces of shit. If you masturbate to eating children and raping women you should be shamed out of public life
Why confuse libertinism with liberty? It’s not okay that people who have violent fantasies and express them publicly (part of the kink) are viewed as liberated—they are disregulated libertines who cannot control themselves. That undermines their ability to serve as sober, thoughtful, concerned public servants.
Back in the day, Reagan’s divorce from Jane Wyman was considered a political liability. Now we’re debating if a man with publicly displayed sexual fetishes is being “cancelled” because constituents are concerned that he is not a stable rational person. It’s not cancellation to reject unqualified candidates—it’s politics.
Right. I don't care about "lack of judgement" due to posting dumb stuff online. Dumb I could forgive, depending on the context. Publicly sharing your violent sexual fantasies about murdering women and babies and flushing their remails down the toilet as shit? No. You are an objectively fucking evil person. Stay away from public service, stay away from all normal humans, preferably leave the planet.
Only psychopaths have sexual fantasies about something so sick and grotesque.
That's what I was thinking, I'm not a specialist but this definitely feels like psychopathy (one prominent aspect of it being the total lack of empathy/the sadism). I honestly had such a profound sense of unease when they read the "promptly flushed into the sewers" comment. This is the sort of evil shit you would read in a Stephen King novel, Jesus fucking Christ.
It reeks of hatred. Men who jack off to the absolute worst thing imaginable should be in a maximum security facility for the criminally insane. To hum and haw over whether it's ethical/illiberal to bar people like this from gaining positions of power and authority shows us just where "rationalism" is fundamentally lacking in a good dose of humanity and common sense.
It’s the sort of thing that serial killers write in their diaries. It’s creepy and suspicious and sickening to all well-adjusted people.
Katie, Hanania switching from being a racist to making fun of racists would be a “face turn,” the opposite of a “heel turn.”
I think she's mixing it up with "turning on [one's] heel".
I understood what she was saying but Jesse should have corrected her
But that would have spawned another minute and 30 of Katie obnoxiously clapping back like an unfunny ten year old.
But from the perspective of the community Hanania used to ID with, he did a heel turn?
Honestly I think Hanania is just an irrepressible but erudite troll and the stupid right just makes an excellent target, especially for a man who is perfectly happy to get down in the mud and engage with their ideas rather than recoiling in horror like most libs do when confronted by Captive Dreamer.
He will turn on progressives or liberals or anyone else so long as it’s entertaining.
Katie saying she wouldn't go out with a guy if she were straight and he came to pick her up in a Cybertruck truly convinces me that she hasn't the faintest interest in men.
Does he drive a Cybertruck? is not the question! Is he hot? Does he look nice in slacks and a button-down shirt? Is he gym buddies with Greg? Does he have a rich baritone voice that you'd like to listen to if he asks enough questions and doesn't talk too much about himself? These are the questions straight women ask!
Idk, I don’t care much about expensive cars either way, but I also don’t especially fancy being driven around town in a large municipal trash can.
My kids were totally into them a year ago and now say they're not so cool anymore. If anyone's curious about what the middle-grade set thinks!
My young kids thought they looked neat. . . But that was my thought too. Seemed like a truck they 8 year old me would have thought was AWESOME.
Well put
If these priorities make a woman straight then I am definitely something else. Baritone voices are fine but i would like a guy with better judgement than one who would spend 100k for a vehicle that looks so much like a dumpster it tricks innocent raccoons.
Tbf of all the things women THINK they can change about their partner….this is one with a fair chance of success.
You could probably have him in an Odyssey mini van within two years.
Fair, when I was dating, I always saw an inexpensive apartment and a clunker of a car as a sign of shared financial values.
I’m a straight woman and I also would not go out with a cybertruck guy.
Idk, I'm very straight and a cybertruck would give me a major ick
I'm a straight woman. I wouldn't date a guy with a Cybertruck, because it demonstrates that he has horrible judgement and is obsessed with wasting money on status symbols. That's the kind of guy who will cheat on you the first chance he gets, trust.
If Katie were straight she’d CLEARLY prefer men in cargo shorts.
I've long imagined a scenario where Katie is sitting under a coconut tree at Kamala Harrs' house. After getting bonked on the head with a coconut, Katie wakes up liking men. She then immediately processes her love for Jesse. She even agrees to procreate.
Creepy and unfunny
IDK. I'm straight and would be put off by a cybertruck. Nothing to do with Elon, but they are ugly and garish.
A Cybertruck per se wouldn't do it for me -- it reads to me as attention-seeking, which I find unattractive in a man-- but a Model X would impress me, absolutely.
After overhearing my daughter and I ranting about how ugly cybertrucks are, My husband confessed to me he thinks they look cool…
Not grounds for divorce unless he actually went out and bought one.
I'm a guy and I think cybertrucks look so hideous and absurd that it's comical, and I find it baffling that anyone actually thinks they look cool..
But if I found out that someone owned a cybertruck, it would have very little if any effect on my opinion of them.